get_document

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered without the description. The one genuinely additive fact is "metadata only", which tells the agent the document body is not returned — a real behavioral detail not encoded in any structured field. Beyond that (error behavior for missing ids, what metadata fields exist) nothing is disclosed.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the action and immediately narrowed to the by-id, metadata-only scope. "Get a document." is partially redundant with the sentence that follows, but the total length is small enough that nothing meaningfully burdens the 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?

For a one-parameter read tool with rich annotations and no output schema, the description covers invocation adequately. It is thin on returns, though: with no output schema present, the phrase "metadata only" is the sole signal about what comes back, and it doesn't indicate which metadata fields or what happens for an unknown id.

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 100% for the single id parameter, so the schema already carries the semantics and the baseline is 3. The description's "by id" phrasing matches and lightly reinforces the lookup key, but adds no format, range, or error semantics beyond the schema.

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?

"Get a document. One document by id, metadata only." names a specific verb and resource and constrains the scope to a single item by id, plus a key qualifier that only metadata is returned. It does not, however, differentiate itself from siblings like list_documents or update_document, so an agent must infer the boundary from names alone.

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?

Usage is only implied: fetch a single document when you already have its numeric id and want metadata. There is no explicit when-not guidance, no mention of what to use instead if the document body is needed, and no pointer to list_documents for discovery.

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