Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses that the response exposes ACLs and share links (sensitive surfaces an agent wouldn't otherwise anticipate), and 'Get' implies read-only, but it says nothing about permission requirements for reading ACLs or whether access failures are returned.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

A single well-formed sentence with the resource and returned fields front-loaded and no filler. It is tight, though extremely brief for a tool with two undocumented required parameters.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and read semantics are implied by 'Get'. However, with 0% schema coverage on two required params and no annotations, the description leaves the most error-prone part of invocation (which identifiers to supply) unaddressed.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0% and neither doc_id nor household_id is described. The description only implies that a document identifier is needed ('for a specific document') and never explains household_id or the relationship between the two required identifiers.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('document'), and enumerates the payload contents (metadata, ACLs, share links), so an agent knows exactly what it retrieves. It gives no hint of how it differs from siblings like list_documents, extract_document_data, or update_document, so it stops short of a 5.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

There is no statement of when to use this instead of list_documents or extract_document_data, and no prerequisites or exclusions. The phrase 'for a specific document' hints at single-item scope but leaves the choice between siblings to inference.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.