get_documentOne document's metadata. Use read_document_pages to read it.
If an `availability` key is present, read it before quoting figures: its
`problems` are transcription-lint findings, most often a footnote marker
that may have been merged into the number it annotates. No such key means
the document transcribed cleanly.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| document_id | Yes | Document id from list_government_documents or search_documents. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful behavior beyond that: it explains the optional availability key and what its problems list means, which the agent cannot infer from annotations or schema. It does not cover what fields the metadata contains, keeping it below a 5.
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 short paragraphs, front-loaded with the purpose and the sibling redirect, then the conditional availability note. No wasted words, though the second paragraph is slightly dense.
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 one-parameter read-only metadata tool, the description covers purpose, the sibling boundary, and the one non-obvious behavioral detail (availability problems). No output schema exists, so field-level return detail is absent, but the essential calling context is present.
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?
The single document_id parameter is fully described in the schema (100% coverage), including its source, so the description does not need to repeat it. Baseline 3 applies because the description adds nothing about the parameter beyond the schema.
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 and resource: retrieving one document's metadata, and explicitly redirects to read_document_pages for the actual content. This distinguishes it from its closest sibling. The only shortfall is that 'metadata' is not itemized, but the scope is still clear.
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?
Explicitly names the alternative (read_document_pages) and the condition that selects it (to read the document). It also gives a conditional check on the availability key before quoting figures, which is actionable routing guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.