get_received_document

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already tells the agent this is a safe read, so the description's main added value is scoping: it discloses which document categories are covered, which helps the agent avoid calling it for issued documents. Beyond that it says nothing about behavior on a missing/invalid id, permission requirements, or whether company_id defaults affect visibility.

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 short sentence with no filler, and the core purpose is front-loaded. It is efficient, though its brevity is partly under-specification rather than disciplined density.

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?

With no output schema, the description must carry some burden of explaining what comes back; 'dettaglio completo' gestures at a full record but does not say what fields or related data are included. For a simple two-parameter read tool with a readOnlyHint annotation this is borderline adequate, but an agent still lacks guidance on id sourcing and error behavior.

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 only 50%: company_id is documented in the schema with its default resolution, but id is undocumented anywhere. The description does not mention any parameter, does not clarify that id is the received-document identifier (as opposed to a receipt or issued-document id), and does not explain the company-scoping semantics. It fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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 names a specific verb ('Dettaglio completo') and resource ('documento ricevuto') and even enumerates the covered document types (spesa, nota di credito passiva, DDT passivo), so an agent knows exactly what entity it retrieves. It does not explicitly contrast itself with list_received_documents or get_pending_received_document, but the singular 'documento' versus 'list' sibling naming makes the distinction reasonably inferable.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this tool versus the many retrieval siblings (list_received_documents, get_pending_received_document, get_document_pdf, get_archive_document). No prerequisite is mentioned, such as obtaining the id from a list call first, and no exclusion is given. Usage is only implied by the word 'dettaglio'.

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