get_document

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds the scope (quotes/invoices) but no additional behavior such as error handling or required permissions. No contradiction.

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?

A single, clear sentence in Japanese with no extraneous words. Front-loaded with the action and scope.

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 simple single-parameter read tool with a readOnlyHint annotation and an output schema, the description provides sufficient information about the input and purpose. The only missing piece is alternative guidance, already penalized in usage_guidelines.

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 schema only states document_mid is a string with no description. The tool description compensates by identifying it as a MakeLeaps ID, giving the parameter semantic meaning beyond type. However, it does not describe format or examples, so not a full 5.

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 tool retrieves details of quotes or invoices by MakeLeaps ID, with a specific verb (取得する) and resource (見積書/請求書). It is distinct from sibling search_documents which would search without an ID.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs search_documents or other siblings. It implies an ID is required but does not state that search_documents should be used when the ID is unknown.

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