paperless_get_document_metadata

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

The description discloses that the underlying endpoint includes OCR content but the tool strips it before returning. This adds behavioral context beyond the 'readOnlyHint' annotation, which is consistent with the safe read nature of the tool.

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 concise, front-loaded with a critical privacy tier warning, and organized in a clear, readable format. Every sentence adds necessary context without verbosity.

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 tool's simplicity (1 parameter, no output schema), the description fully covers what the tool returns, what it strips, and how to use it. It is contextually complete for an agent to invoke correctly.

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?

The single parameter 'document_id' is fully described in the schema with 100% coverage. The description does not add new semantic information beyond what the schema provides, so it meets the baseline with no extra value.

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 tool returns full metadata for one document and lists specific fields (title, correspondent, etc.). It also distinguishes itself from the sibling tool 'paperless_get_document_content' by noting that this tool strips the OCR content field.

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 explicitly states when to use this tool (for metadata only) and when to use the alternative 'paperless_get_document_content' (if actual text is needed). This provides clear guidance to the agent.

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