read_document

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states the tool 'retrieves and parses' and returns a dictionary, but doesn't describe what parsing entails, potential error conditions, format of the returned dictionary, or any limitations. For a parsing tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral aspects undocumented.

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 appropriately concise with two clear sentences stating purpose and return value, plus parameter documentation in a structured Args/Returns format. Every element serves a purpose, though the parameter documentation could be slightly more integrated into the main description flow rather than as a separate block.

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 tool's moderate complexity (parsing operation), no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose and parameter semantics but lacks details about parsing behavior, error handling, and return format specifics that would be needed for confident tool invocation.

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 adds meaningful context for the single parameter 'data_hex' by specifying it should be 'hex-encoded document data (from OP_RETURN)', which provides crucial semantic information not present in the schema (which has 0% description coverage). This compensates well for the schema's lack of parameter documentation, though it doesn't detail format constraints or validation rules.

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 tool's purpose with specific verbs ('retrieve and parse') and identifies the resource ('document from transaction data'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'decode_op_return' or 'parse_envelope' by focusing specifically on document content rather than general decoding or envelope parsing. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with these alternatives in the description text itself.

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 provides minimal usage guidance. It mentions the source of data ('from OP_RETURN') which implies some context, but doesn't specify when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'decode_op_return' or 'parse_envelope' that also handle OP_RETURN data. No explicit when/when-not guidance or prerequisites are provided.

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