get_document

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. The description names the resource and scope (IT Glue) but doesn't describe typical retrieval behaviors like whether it returns the full document content, sections, or just metadata. There's no contradiction with annotations (none exist), but for a read tool it's minimally 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?

Single sentence, 11 words, zero wasted content. It states the verb, the resource, the retrieval key, and the source system. Efficient and 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?

This is a simple read tool with 2 well-documented parameters and no output schema, so completeness expectations are modest. The description covers purpose and key input. However, it doesn't hint at what the expected return looks like, which an agent might want to know when handling the response.

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 both 'id' (The document ID) and 'organization_id' (Organization ID that owns the document) explained in the schema. The description adds 'by ID' context that reinforces the 'id' parameter's role, but doesn't explain formatting requirements, how organization_id relates to the document, or what happens if the ID doesn't exist. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema already documents both parameters well.

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?

Clear verb+resource: 'Get a specific document by ID from IT Glue' tells the agent this retrieves a single document. It distinguishes from search_documents (which searches) and list tools, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings like get_configuration or get_organization.

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 usage context through 'by ID' — this is the tool to fetch a single specific document when you know its ID, versus search_documents for finding documents. However, it provides no explicit when-to-use, prerequisites, or guidance versus alternatives like list_document_folders or get_document's sibling retrieval tools.

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