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

Annotations already establish read-only, non-destructive, open-world behavior. The description adds useful context about what is returned (textHTML and invoice line items) and the underlying GET endpoint, though it omits error behavior and pagination details.

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 compact and front-loaded: it states what the blocks contain, explains the document-record relationship, and notes required parameters. Every sentence contributes useful information.

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 retrieval tool with complete input schema coverage and no output schema, the description sufficiently explains the returned content and the reason the tool exists. An agent can invoke it correctly without additional context.

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 100%, so both required parameters are fully documented in the schema. The description reinforces that entityType and entityId are required and names the valid document types, but adds little beyond the schema itself.

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 specifies the exact resource: content blocks of a contract, proposal, or invoice, including textHTML and invoice line items. It also clarifies that a document record only holds block ids, which distinguishes this retrieval tool from document-list tools.

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?

It clearly indicates when this tool is needed: to retrieve the actual content behind block ids on a contract, proposal, or invoice. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternative tools, but no direct sibling alternative exists.

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