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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds non-obvious behavior beyond that: the call is cost-free, it does not open document content, and it does not trigger OCR — useful boundaries an agent could not infer from the schema.

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?

Two tight sentences, front-loaded with the resource and its payload, followed by the exclusion. The middle routing sentence ('Use get_procurement to list the related documents') is slightly ambiguous in direction but costs little.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the burden of describing returns, and it does so by naming the fields returned. For a single-id read tool with complete annotations, this is nearly sufficient; only error behavior for an invalid id is 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?

There is one parameter ('id') with 100% schema description coverage, and the description adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies when the schema fully carries parameter meaning.

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?

States a specific verb+resource (free lookup of a document) and enumerates exactly what is returned: title, type, pages, and linked procurement. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from close siblings like get_document_dossier or list_document_files, so it lands just 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?

Gives an explicit exclusion ('does not open content or start OCR') and routes the agent elsewhere ('Use get_procurement to list the related documents'). It is clear context, but the neighbouring-tool routing is somewhat indirect and no other alternative (e.g. get_document_dossier) is compared against.

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