reed_get_document

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

With strong annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint), the description adds value by explaining the return shape matches a list row and that it surfaces 'ready' or 'error' states. This goes beyond annotations by describing behavioral output without contradicting them.

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 core action, followed by return shape and a practical use-case example. No filler or redundant information.

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?

Given the simple single-parameter tool, the presence of an output schema, and strong annotations, the description fully covers purpose, return behavior, and when to use it. There is no missing critical information for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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% and the parameter description already includes an example and reference to reed_list_documents. The tool description adds no further parameter detail, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate; schema carries the burden.

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 fetches indexing status and metadata for a single document by id. It also distinguishes itself from siblings by specifying it returns the same shape as one reed_list_documents row, making the scope and resource unambiguous.

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 gives a clear context for when to use the tool: checking whether a just-uploaded document is ready or why it failed. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the context implies this is the single-document status checker compared to list/search/ask siblings.

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