Internal Documentation Search

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool retrieves content or summaries and returns JSON or errors, which covers basic behavior. However, it lacks details on permissions, rate limits, or side effects, leaving gaps for a retrieval tool with no annotation support.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded: the first sentence states the core purpose, followed by usage guidance, parameter details, and return info. Each sentence adds value without redundancy, and it's structured with clear sections (Args, Returns) for readability.

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 no annotations, 0% schema coverage, and an output schema present, the description is mostly complete. It covers purpose, usage, parameters, and returns adequately. However, it could improve by mentioning error handling specifics or output structure details, though the output schema mitigates this gap.

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 fully. It adds significant meaning beyond the schema: it explains the document_id format (e.g., 'STD-001'), clarifies the summary parameter's effect (returns first 500 chars when True to save context), and provides examples, making parameters well-understood.

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 verb 'retrieve' and resource 'internal document by its ID', making the purpose specific. It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on single-document retrieval rather than listing, categorizing, tagging, or searching multiple documents, which is explicitly mentioned in the usage guidance.

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 explicitly states 'Use this after search_internal_docs to get details of a specific document', providing clear when-to-use guidance. It differentiates from siblings by implying this tool is for detailed retrieval post-search, while others handle listing or broader searches, though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives or exclusions.

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