get_document

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Get' which implies read, but doesn't disclose behavior for missing documents, error handling, permissions, rate limits, or return format. Minimal behavioral information is provided.

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?

One short sentence, front-loaded with the core action. No wasted words. It is concise and well-structured for a tool of this simplicity.

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 low-complexity tool with complete parameter schemas and an existing output schema, the description is nearly sufficient. It lacks guidance on edge cases or sibling comparisons, but the schema covers parameters and output, making it reasonably complete. Missing annotation context slightly reduces the score.

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 tool description adds no parameter information beyond the input schema, which already has 100% coverage with descriptive definitions for document_id and collection_name. Baseline 3 applies; the description provides no additional meaning.

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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('document') with clear scoping ('by ID'), distinguishing it from collection-level reads like read_collection. It is unambiguous and tells the agent exactly what this tool does.

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 provides no when-to-use guidance or alternatives. It doesn't mention when to use this over read_collection or other get_* tools, nor when not to use it. The phrase 'single document by ID' implies usage, but no explicit guidance is given.

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