get_document

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses return contents (verbatim text, page numbers, sha256, source URL) and that the server never paraphrases or extracts structured claims, which is real behavioral context. It says nothing about permissions, rate limits, or what happens when content exceeds max_chars, leaving meaningful gaps.

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?

Front-loaded with the retrieval scope, then the identification methods, then the return contract. Every sentence contributes, though the enumerated headings list is dense enough to slightly bloat the middle.

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?

No annotations and no output schema, so the description must do all the work for an 8-parameter tool. It covers identification, filtering, and the shape of returned prose, but omits the semantics of max_chars (truncation behavior at the 15000 default) and return_, which matter 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 compensate, and it explains 6 of 8 parameters: doc_id, scheme_id, doc_type, as_of, query, and sections (with the exact accepted heading values). return_ and max_chars are never mentioned, which is the only material omission.

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?

Starts with a specific verb+resource ('Retrieve source-document evidence') and immediately scopes it ('the relevant pages, not the whole PDF'). It contrasts itself with sibling get_fund_profile by citing that tool's documents list as the source of doc_id, so an agent can route correctly without opening schemas.

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?

Gives two concrete identification paths (doc_id vs scheme_id + doc_type + as_of) and explains the role of query (keyword-scoped) versus sections (SEBI-standard headings with examples). It does not state when NOT to use this tool versus the sibling profile/portfolio tools, which keeps it short of a 5.

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