Get general document

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

Annotations already communicate that this is read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds useful behavioral context by stating the response includes attachments and notes, which is especially valuable given there is no output schema. There is no contradiction with the annotations.

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, front-loaded sentence that states the action, the target resource, the lookup method, and what is included in the result. There is no fluff or unnecessary repetition.

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 simple read-only operation with only two parameters, the combination of schema, annotations, and description is sufficient to call the tool correctly. The description names the expected contents of the result, partially compensating for the missing output schema. More sibling differentiation would improve completeness, but the core invocation context is clear.

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 required general_document_id has no schema description, and the description's phrase 'by id' only weakly confirms it is the lookup key. The administration_id parameter is well-described in the schema, but the description does not add any meaning to it. With only 50% schema description coverage, the description does not sufficiently compensate for the undocumented required parameter.

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 names a specific verb and resource: 'Retrieve one general document by id'. It also clarifies the scope by saying the result includes attachments and notes, which helps distinguish it from broader list tools and other document-type getters like get_typeless_document.

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 the appropriate use case: the agent has a specific general_document_id and wants that single document. However, it does not explicitly explain when to prefer this over list_general_documents, get_typeless_document, or other sibling retrieval tools, and it gives no when-not-to-use guidance.

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