Get Lea Document

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

The annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, but the description says the tool marks the document as read on Omnivox and may save a file locally. Both are side effects that contradict the read-only annotation. Although the description usefully discloses expiry and return behavior, the contradiction is serious enough to score 1.

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 three tight sentences with no filler. It front-loads the core action and then adds the return-mode behavior and the read-marking caution in a logical order.

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?

With no output schema, the description does a good job explaining both return forms and the 15-minute expiry. It also discloses the important side effect of marking the document as read. However, it leaves parameter semantics under-explained and does not resolve the read-only annotation conflict.

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 description provides no parameter guidance beyond the word 'document'. Schema coverage is only 67%, and document_id has no schema description at all, so the description should compensate but does not. The moderate schema coverage keeps this above the absolute minimum, but only barely.

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 states a specific verb and resource: fetching a Lea document. It also explains the two return modes (browser link vs. local path), which clarifies the tool's purpose. It does not fully distinguish itself from all related document/file-link siblings, though it names get-course-documents as the browsing alternative.

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 explicitly says to use get-course-documents first when only browsing, because this tool marks the document as read. That is a clear usage condition and alternative. It does not cover other sibling tools such as get-assignment-file-link or get-mio-attachment-link, but the guidance for the main ambiguous case is present.

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