get_document_reference

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. 'Read' implies a non-mutating operation, and 'content URLs fetchable via get_binary' discloses an important behavioral relationship. It stops short of describing error handling or auth requirements, but for a simple read tool this is reasonable.

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 front-loaded sentence with a useful parenthetical. Every word contributes meaning, and there is no repetition of the tool name or schema details.

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 read-by-id tool with an output schema, the description covers the core operation and cross-links to get_binary. It is slightly incomplete only in the undefined 'practice' parameter and lack of edge-case behavior, but overall it is sufficient for the tool's simplicity.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for parameter meaning. It clarifies 'id' with 'by id', but does not explain the 'practice' parameter or how it relates to the lookup. The agent must infer from the parameter name alone, which is insufficient.

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 'Read' and identifies the exact resource (DocumentReference) and lookup key (id), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_binary or fhir_get. The parenthetical about content URLs adds useful context without obscuring the core purpose.

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?

It provides clear context by pointing to get_binary for fetching content URLs, but doesn't explicitly state when to prefer this tool over fhir_get or list exclusions. For a simple read-by-id tool, this is adequate and helpful.

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