get_document

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It conveys that this is a read operation (non-destructive), which is important context, but it does not disclose what happens if the document is not found, whether special permissions are required, or any other side effects. The description adds some behavioral context but leaves gaps.

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 a single, clear sentence with no wasted words. It immediately states the action and the key parameter, making it highly efficient and scannable.

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?

Given the availability of an output schema, the description does not need to explain return values. For a simple get-by-ID tool, the description is adequate but lacks guidance on how to obtain the document_id or what distinguishes 'complete' documents. It does not reference sibling tools, reducing its completeness in a broader 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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for the single parameter document_id. It adds minimal meaning by indicating the parameter is the document's identifier, but it does not explain where to obtain this ID, the expected format, or any constraints. This is insufficient for a parameter with zero schema documentation.

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 uses a specific verb ('Read') with a clear resource ('complete course document') and method ('using its document ID'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like search_materials (search) and create_study_task (create), making its purpose unambiguous.

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 implies usage when you have a document ID and need the full content, but it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternative tools like search_materials for locating documents. There is a clear context but no exclusions or explicit alternatives.

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