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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds which data fields come back, which is useful given no output schema, but says nothing about not-found behavior, domain scoping needs, or permissions.

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?

One tight sentence with the resource and returned fields front-loaded, followed by a short internal API reference. The 'Archive.FindDocument' token is provenance rather than instruction 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?

For a two-parameter read-only lookup with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers what it returns and how it is addressed. Only the missing link to the download/lookup siblings and error behavior keep it from being fully complete.

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% and both parameters (domain_id, document_id) are documented with patterns and sourcing hints. The description only echoes 'by id', adding no format or fallback detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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: retrieve details of one archive document by id, and enumerates the fields returned (subject, type, contact, dates, amounts, folder). The phrase 'one archive document by id' implicitly separates it from list/search siblings, though it never names yuki_list_documents or yuki_search_documents.

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?

Usage is only implied: 'by id' plus the schema note that the id comes from a document list suggests it is the follow-up call after listing or searching. No explicit when-to-use, when-not, or named alternative (e.g. yuki_get_document_download_url for the file itself) is given.

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