tweede_kamer_document_get

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, indicating a safe read operation. The description adds behavioral context about optional resolution of resource URLs and inclusion of text previews, which is valuable beyond annotations.

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 consists of two clear, front-loaded sentences with no unnecessary words. Every sentence adds value, making it concise and well-structured.

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?

With 4 parameters and no output schema, the description is somewhat incomplete. It mentions optional features but does not describe the return format, error conditions, or what 'full details' entails. Annotations help but leave gaps.

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 coverage is 0%, so description must compensate. It explains 'resolve resource URLs' and 'include text previews' (for two parameters), and 'by ID' for the required parameter. However, 'max_chars' is not mentioned, leaving a gap. Overall, it adds meaning for most but not all parameters.

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 the specific verb 'Get' and identifies the resource as 'full details of a specific Tweede Kamer document by ID'. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'tweede_kamer_documents' (listing) or 'tweede_kamer_search' (searching).

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 implies usage when a user has a specific document ID, but it does not explicitly state when not to use it or provide alternatives. For example, it could mention using 'tweede_kamer_search' 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.