get_document_overview

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only, nor does it mention required permissions, potential errors, or rate limits. The word 'Return' implies a read but is not explicit about non-destructiveness.

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 a single sentence that front-loads the verb and resource, and it efficiently lists the output categories without any fluff. Every word is necessary and informative.

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?

The presence of an output schema covers return-value details, and the description lists the main content areas well. However, it lacks any usage context or guidance on when this overview tool is appropriate, which prevents a perfect score. Given the moderate complexity and available schema, it is still sufficiently complete for a read-only tool.

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 input schema already fully documents document_id as 'Exact v3 document_id' and request_id as an optional audit request ID. The description adds minimal extra parameter meaning—it only reinforces that the tool operates on a single document. With 100% schema coverage, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 'Return' as a specific verb and identifies the resource ('one document'), then enumerates the exact content (metadata, abstract screening, heading, Subchunk, SAG, spatiotemporal counts). It clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools like get_subchunk_context, which focuses on a single subchunk rather than a document-level overview.

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 guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives like search_evidence or get_subchunk_context. The description simply states what it does, without any contextual advice, prerequisites, or exclusions.

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