Get agreement document

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

The description adds behavioral context beyond the annotations by listing the returned fields (content type, display name, chain, etc.). Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and no destructiveness, so the description complements them well without contradiction.

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 concise sentences cover purpose and usage guidance with zero fluff. All information is front-loaded and necessary.

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 single-parameter tool with no output schema, the description adequately explains what is returned (list of fields). It could be more complete with response structure details, but the listed fields provide sufficient understanding.

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 input schema description for documentId already states the same sourcing guidance as the tool description. With 100% schema coverage, the description does not add significant new meaning beyond what the parameter description provides.

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 action ('Returns the rendered hosted prose document') and resource ('agreement by documentId'). It lists the specific content fields included, distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_agreement (which likely returns metadata) and list_agreements.

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 tells the agent where to obtain the documentId ('Use documentId from list_agreements/get_agreement or from prepare_deployment_typed_data'), providing clear sourcing guidance. While it doesn't state when not to use it, the context is sufficient for this read-only lookup.

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