scf_get_document

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It explicitly states this is a read operation ('read — viewer role') and describes the returned content: metadata plus every section with merge state. This gives the agent a clear behavioral model, though it does not mention potential error conditions, response size, or pagination characteristics.

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 two sentences with no filler. It front-loads the core action and resource, then adds essential detail about permissions and return contents. Every clause earns its place.

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 two well-documented parameters and no output schema, the description is complete: it states what is returned, the read-only nature, the permission level, and the intended use. An agent can invoke this tool correctly without additional context.

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%, and each parameter already has a clear UUID description plus provenance guidance ('obtain from scf_list_organizations' / 'obtain from scf_list_documents'). The tool description adds no new parameter-level meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline 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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Get one generated document in full' with a clear scope of 'metadata plus every section with its merge state.' It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like scf_get_document_section_generated by emphasizing the full document versus a single section, and the enumerated merge states add precision.

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 a clear usage directive: 'Use this to read a document.' It also states the required viewer role, which provides context on when the tool is appropriate. However, it does not explicitly mention alternative tools or when NOT to use this tool, such as for previewing, exporting, or retrieving a single section.

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