Get Document Schema

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

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior, so the bar is lower. The description adds useful behavioral context around unsupported formats, the 'honest capability label' return behavior, and the local-inventory scope. There is no contradiction with annotations.

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 compact and front-loaded, with the core operation in the first sentence. 'Local read-only operation' is somewhat redundant with annotations, and 'honest capability label' is slightly vague, but there is little wasted space overall.

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?

For a one-parameter, read-only, idempotent tool with an output schema and strong annotations, the description covers scope, unsupported inputs, and its boundary versus an implementation guide. Nothing critical is missing for an agent to call it 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 is already fully documented in the schema, including allowed values and the meaning of 837. The description mostly restates those values, only adding the 'partial' nuance, so it hovers at the baseline expected when schema description coverage is high.

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 the exact operation and resource: 'Get a public X12 starter schema for the local inventory' and scopes it to 850/810/856 baseline plus 837 Professional partial. It also distinguishes itself from a trading-partner implementation guide, which clarifies what this tool is not.

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 clear boundaries: it is explicitly not a trading-partner implementation guide and refuses EDIFACT, HL7, and unknown sets. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives like lookup_x12, but the context is strong enough for an agent to understand when this tool applies.

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