Corpus Get Doc

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses that content is returned chunk by chunk and that interview chunks expose speaker/timestamp_start and audio/source URLs, but it omits whether one call returns all chunks or paginates, and says nothing about volume limits or auth needs.

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 lines, front-loaded with the core purpose and followed by the one non-obvious return detail. Little waste, though the parenthetical '(chunk by chunk)' and the metadata sentence could be tightened.

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?

An output schema exists, so return structure need not be re-explained. The description covers the essential retrieval behavior and a special-case field note, leaving only pagination/volume behavior unaddressed for a 2-param read tool.

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%: doc_id format/source and max_chars_per_chunk semantics (including 0 = no limit) are fully documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter detail beyond that, so 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+resource+scope: 'Fetch a document's full content (chunk by chunk).' An agent can tell this is a retrieve-by-id operation, distinct from corpus_search/corpus_suggest. It stops short of naming the search siblings it complements, so it isn't a 5.

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 context is only implied: the doc_id flows from search results (documented in the schema, not the description), and the description adds a narrow hint about interview chunks and audio_url/source_url. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not or named alternative.

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