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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, which align with a safe, idempotent read operation. The description adds no further behavioral context (e.g., error handling, data format). With annotations carrying the burden, this is adequate but not exemplary.

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 extremely concise (6 words) but sacrifices useful detail. It is appropriately front-loaded, but the brevity leaves gaps that could be filled with minimal additional text.

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?

The tool has an output schema, reducing the need to describe return values. However, the description omits that a knowledgebase_id is needed, which is critical context. For a simple retrieval operation, it is adequately complete but not fully self-contained.

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 coverage is 0%, yet the description provides no parameter details. It mentions 'by ID' but does not clarify that both document_id and knowledgebase_id are required. The description fails to add meaning beyond what the schema's property names already convey.

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 the tool retrieves a single document by its ID. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_documents (list multiple) and create_document (create). The verb-resource pairing is precise.

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 use when you need a specific document by ID. While it does not explicitly exclude alternatives, the context of sibling tools (many with similar prefixes) makes usage obvious. Lacks explicit when-not-to-use guidance, but clear enough.

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