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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint; the description adds value beyond these by explaining the return components (metadata, link, URL, body) and noting conditional availability ('if available'). It does not contradict 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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with purpose, no wasted words. The informal quote 'Show me the source.' quickly conveys intent. Every sentence adds value.

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?

Given 5 parameters, no output schema, and annotations present, the description covers what is returned and hints at document_id source. It lacks explicit return structure or error handling, but is largely complete for the tool's complexity.

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 100%, so baseline is 3. The high-level description does not add significant detail beyond the schema; it groups the output but does not elaborate on parameter semantics like format or defaults.

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 clearly states that the tool returns the full citation chain for a specific document, including metadata, legal_link, signed URL, and body. This is a specific verb+resource combination and differentiates it from siblings like get_document_text or get_source_url by being a comprehensive single-call retrieval.

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?

The description implies usage for auditability and when a full citation chain is needed, but does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it. The sibling tools are listed but not compared, leaving the agent to infer context without direct guidance.

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