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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=false, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful scope by stating exactly what metadata and share-link count are included, but it does not discuss permissions, rate limits, or other behavioral constraints beyond annotations.

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?

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. The field list is long but directly supports what the tool returns, so every part earns its place.

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?

For a simple read-only tool with an output schema already defining return values, the description is mostly adequate. However, with 0% parameter description coverage, it should do more to explain household_id and doc_id, and it lacks explicit routing relative to list_documents.

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 required parameter has a description in the schema. The description implies that doc_id identifies the document, but it does not explain household_id or clarify how the two parameters relate to the lookup.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('Get one document's metadata') and enumerates the metadata fields returned. It is clearly distinguishable from list_documents and mutation siblings like update_document or delete_document, though it does not explicitly name alternatives.

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?

Usage is implied by 'Get one document's metadata', suggesting this is for inspecting a single document rather than listing or modifying documents. However, it gives no explicit when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no mention of its sibling list_documents.

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