get_doc

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the transparency burden. It does disclose a meaningful behavioral trait: the response includes complete metadata and security annotations. It does not, however, describe error behavior, what happens if no identifier is supplied, whether url/pageId/chunkId are mutually exclusive, or any access requirements.

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?

One focused sentence with no filler; it front-loads the action and resource and adds useful output context (metadata and security annotations) without redundancy.

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?

The description is adequate for a straightforward lookup when the agent already has an identifier, but the lack of an output schema and the absence of any note that exactly one of url/pageId/chunkId should be supplied leaves room for misuse. It could be more complete for a tool whose parameters are all optional.

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%, so the baseline is 3; the schema already explains url, pageId, and chunkId. The description adds the general 'by ID or URL' concept but no additional parameter-level meaning such as precedence or exclusivity.

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 ('Retrieve') and a specific resource ('documentation page or contextual chunk'), and clarifies that lookup can be by ID or URL and returns metadata and security annotations. It clearly distinguishes this from search/find/diff-style siblings, though it does not explicitly name a sibling for contrast.

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 phrase 'by ID or URL' implies the tool is intended for known-identifier lookups, which is the main selection cue. However, it provides no explicit when-to-use guidance or contrast with alternatives like search_docs or get_implementation_context, leaving the agent to infer context from the tool name and wording.

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