Read a document

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered elsewhere. The description's contribution is the content profile — signer statuses including rejection reasons and audit-log history — which is useful for judging relevance, though an output schema exists that likely covers much of the same ground.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the return contents are listed compactly in parentheses. It reads as a fragment rather than a statement of action ("One document: ..."), which slightly weakens the opening, but nothing is wasted.

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 one-parameter read tool with full schema coverage, complete annotations, and an output schema, the description supplies enough to call it correctly and anticipate the response shape. Only the routing relationship to find_documents and contact_documents is left unstated.

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 100% and the single parameter document_id is documented with an example, so the schema carries the burden. The description adds no detail about the ID's origin (e.g., where to obtain it from find_documents), which is the one place extra meaning would have helped.

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?

"One document" plus the enumeration of what comes back (signers with signed/rejected/opened/not-opened states, plus audit-log history) makes the resource and payload unambiguous. The singular framing implicitly separates it from find_documents, but no sibling is named explicitly, so it stops short of full differentiation.

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?

Usage is only implied: "One document" signals a single-record lookup by ID, which the agent can infer is different from the search-oriented find_documents. There is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternative, so the agent must reason about routing itself.

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