get_doc_parameters

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It makes clear this is a read operation and lists the returned fields (ID, question/name, technical name, data type, mandatory flag), which is useful. It says nothing about authentication requirements, error behavior when a document has no prompts, or pagination, so the disclosure is partial.

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 tightly written sentences with the primary purpose front-loaded and the return values following. No filler or redundancy.

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?

An output schema exists, so the description is not obligated to explain return values (though it helpfully does). For a simple one-parameter read tool this is largely sufficient; the only meaningful gap is the absence of any hint about sourcing the webi_doc_id or the get_parameter_lov alternative.

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% for the single required parameter webi_doc_id, and the description never mentions it or explains how to obtain a valid document ID. The parameter name is somewhat self-descriptive, but the description does not compensate for the schema gap.

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?

States a specific verb (Retrieves) and resource (prompt parameters required by a Web Intelligence report), and even enumerates the returned fields, so the agent knows exactly what it produces. It does not, however, differentiate itself from the sibling get_parameter_lov, which an agent would need in order to disambiguate the two parameter-related tools.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of the closest alternative (get_parameter_lov). Usage can only be inferred from the resource described, leaving the agent to guess between the parameter-related siblings.

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