get_message_document

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the return structure (filename, mime_type, size_bytes, content) and notes that an error field is returned if extraction is not possible. This gives the agent a clear model of expected behavior, though it does not cover edge cases like permission failures or unsupported file types.

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 compact and well-structured: a one-sentence summary followed by concise Args and Returns sections. Every sentence adds value, and the main purpose is front-loaded.

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 tool with only two required parameters and no output schema, this description is largely complete. It explains both parameters and describes the return payload. It could be slightly richer by mentioning likely failure modes or prerequisites, but nothing essential is missing for correct 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must add meaning. It does: 'entity' is explained as chat username or chat ID with an example, and 'message_id' is described as the ID of the message containing the document. This goes well beyond the bare schema types and titles.

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 action: 'Download and extract text from a document attached to a specific message.' This identifies the resource (document attached to a message) and the operation (download/extract text), and it is distinct from sibling tools like search_dialogs, get_messages, and search_messages.

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 usage context is implied by the description: use this when you need the text content of a document attached to a specific message. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over siblings or provide any 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.