read_document

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral disclosure burden. It states the core read operation but does not mention error behavior, return format, or any other side effects. The read-only nature is implied by the name, but no additional context is provided. It neither contradicts annotations nor adds significant depth beyond the obvious.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It states the action and the key input in minimal words, earning every word. It is concise and well-structured.

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?

This is a simple tool with one parameter and an output schema, so the description need not explain return values. It sufficiently covers the core function and identifies the required input. However, it could be more complete by explicitly guiding when to use this tool versus siblings, which would elevate the contextual guidance.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It does so by explaining that doc_id is the 'document ID' that identifies the document to read. This gives the parameter meaning beyond the bare schema property name, though it does not specify how to obtain the ID (e.g., from list_documents) or the expected format.

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 action ('Return the contents'), the resource ('a document'), and the condition ('given its document ID'). It is immediately distinguishable from siblings list_documents (listing) and edit_document (modifying), so the purpose is specific and unambiguous.

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 usage is implied: if you have a document ID and need its contents, use this tool. However, there is no explicit guidance on when not to use it or which alternative (e.g., list_documents for metadata) to choose. No alternatives are named, so it does not fully meet the 'explicit when/when-not' standard.

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