documents_info

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Get detailed information' without specifying what 'detailed' includes (e.g., metadata, content, permissions), any authentication or permission requirements, or whether the operation is purely read-only. The description adds little beyond the tool's name.

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 a single, concise sentence that front-loads the core function. Every word is purposeful, with no redundant or filler content, making it highly scannable for an AI agent.

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?

The tool is relatively simple with two parameters and no output schema. The description gives a clear purpose but does not explain what 'detailed information' comprises, nor does it mention any error behavior or return format. Given the lack of annotations and output schema, a slightly richer description would have been more complete, but the current description is minimally adequate.

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 schema already provides thorough descriptions for both parameters (id: 'Document UUID or urlId'; shareId: 'Share ID'), achieving 100% coverage. The description echoes 'by ID or share ID', reinforcing that these are alternative identifiers, but this is marginal added value over the schema. Therefore, the baseline 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 clearly states the tool's function: 'Get detailed information about a document by ID or share ID.' It specifies the action (get), the resource (document), and the scope (by ID or share ID), and distinguishes it from siblings like documents_list and documents_search, which serve different purposes.

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 no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Usage is implied by the name and description: for retrieving details on a single known document, as opposed to listing or searching. However, no exclusions or alternative tool references are provided, so it only meets the 'implied usage' bar.

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