Get document

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds nothing beyond that – no error behavior for a missing/invalid ID, no note on the fields/format defaults, no pagination or permission context.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with zero waste. It is efficient, though borderline under-specified rather than genuinely concise-and-complete.

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?

An output schema exists and schema coverage is 100%, so return values need no explanation in the description. Still, for a tool sitting among several document siblings, the lack of any routing or behavioral note leaves a modest gap that the structured fields do not fill.

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 both optional parameters (fields, format) carry full enum descriptions in the schema, so the baseline is 3. The description's 'by ID' only restates the required documentId and adds no syntax or default information beyond the schema.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Retrieve a document by ID'), which is unambiguous on its own. It does not distinguish itself from siblings like glpi_list_documents or glpi_get_document_item, so an agent must infer the difference from the names alone.

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?

No guidance on when to use this versus the sibling document tools (list_documents, get_document_item). The 'by ID' phrasing implies single-item retrieval, but no alternatives or conditions are named.

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