Get typeless document

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the description only needs to add extra behavior. It does by noting the response includes attachments, a non-obvious detail not inferable from the name or schema. There is no contradiction with 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?

A single ten-word sentence with no filler. The subject, verb, resource, and key qualifier (attachments) are all front-loaded, making it easy to scan.

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 get-by-id tool with safety annotations and one required parameter, the description covers the core behavior and return characteristic (attachments). However, it omites a pointer to list_typeless_documents for id discovery and any detail on how attachments are represented, leaving minor gaps.

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 only 50%; typeless_document_id has no description. The tool description merely says 'by id,' which does not add meaning beyond the parameter name and does not point to list_typeless_documents as the source of valid ids. administration_id is already well documented in the schema.

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 the specific verb 'retrieve' with the resource 'typeless document' and adds the scoping qualifiers 'by id, with its attachments.' This clearly distinguishes it from list_typeless_documents and other get_* siblings.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention list_typeless_documents for discoverying ids or contrast with get_general_document/get_general_ournal_document, so usage must be inferred from the tool name and standard get-by-id pattern.

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