get_document

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must bear the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It clarifies that the tool returns metadata and not the binary, and it names the returned fields. However, it does not mention error behavior (e.g., for non-archived documents), authorization requirements, or any side effects. While it avoids contradiction, it misses opportunities to add context beyond the return value list.

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 short, purposeful sentences. The first sentence states the primary function and output, the second guides to finding IDs, and the third points to the download sibling. No fluff; every sentence earns its place and is front-loaded with the verb+resource.

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 lack of output schema, the description compensates by listing returned fields (file name, folder, date, amount, status). It also provides sufficient navigation among sibling tools (list_documents, search_documents, download_document). It could mention failure modes or authentication, but for a simple metadata retrieval tool, the coverage is adequate and well directed.

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?

Input schema coverage is 100% so baseline is 3, but the description adds meaning by explaining that documentId can be obtained from list_documents/search_documents, and administrationId defaults to YUKI_DOMAIN_ID env var. This enriches the schema descriptions, especially around where parameter values come from.

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: 'Retrieve metadata for a single archived document by its Yuki document ID.' It lists specific return fields (file name, folder, date, amount, status) and distinguishes itself from siblings like download_document (binary) and list_documents/search_documents (finding IDs). This is a specific verb+resource definition with explicit sibling differentiation.

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 gives explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives: 'Use list_documents or search_documents to find document IDs. To download the file binary use download_document.' It clearly states prerequisites (need a Yuki document ID) and directs to other tools for discovery and binary retrieval, covering both when and when-not.

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