get_imported_document

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the tool is known to be a read operation. The description adds value by specifying the return content (gate candidates and provenance), which goes beyond the annotations. No side effects or prerequisites are mentioned, but for a simple read, this is adequate.

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 sentence that immediately states the verb and resource, followed by the return content. Every word is informative and there is no redundancy or wasted text.

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 low complexity (one required parameter, no output schema), the description adequately covers the purpose and return content. It does not mention error cases or prerequisites, but for a simple read operation, the information provided is sufficient.

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% with the parameter 'documentId' described as 'Imported document id.'. The description does not add additional semantic meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 verb 'Read' and the resource 'previously imported document', and specifies the return content: 'proposed gate candidates and provenance'. This effectively distinguishes it from siblings like 'import_document' and 'list_imported_documents'.

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 tool is for reading a specific imported document by ID, but it does not explicitly provide when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance compared to alternatives. The context signal of a single required parameter makes usage clear, but no exclusions are stated.

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