get_document

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

The description discloses that the user will be prompted for consent before data is returned—a critical behavioral detail not present in annotations or schema. It adds transparency about the interactive nature of the operation, though it does not elaborate on error conditions or return format.

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 consists of two focused sentences, with the primary purpose stated first and the consent behavior following. No redundant details.

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 generic retrieval tool with no output schema or annotations, the description covers the essential context: what it does, when to use it (non-dedicated types), and a key behavioral note (consent prompt). It lacks explicit return format details, but the 'fields' concept and schema provide adequate information for a straightforward read operation.

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?

All four parameters are fully described in the schema (100% coverage), and the description does not add meaningful parameter-level detail beyond what is already available. It slightly reinforces document_type usage but does not exceed the baseline.

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 identifies the action (retrieve fields), the resource (any document type), and explicitly differentiates from dedicated getters by stating 'not covered by a dedicated tool,' distinguishing it from siblings like get_passport or get_visa.

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 phrase 'not covered by a dedicated tool' provides an explicit when-to-use condition and implies that dedicated tools should be used for their respective document types, thus giving clear guidance relative to siblings.

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