get_document

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is known. The description goes beyond the input schema by clarifying the behavior of retrieving both the full document and partial page/section ranges, setting expectations about scope and output. It does not contradict the 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?

Two sentences carry complete functional intent with no redundancy. The main retrieval behavior is front-loaded, and the usage context is at the end, making it easy to scan and process.

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?

The tool has an output schema, so return values do not need to be explained. However, with an input schema that has zero property descriptions, the tool description does not fully compensate: it does not clarify what 'collection' refers to or how the agent obtains a valid doc_id. For a simple retrieval tool with read-only annotations this is acceptable but still leaves a clear 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 all parameter meaning should come from the description. It does explain the page_start/page_end semantics through 'page/section range,' but it leaves collection and doc_id entirely intuitive, with no explanation of how they relate to a citation or where the necessary values come from. This is inadequate with four 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 states a precise verb ('Retrieves'), a clear resource ('full original source document behind a citation', or a page/section range), and frames the tool in relation to citation context. This makes it easy for an agent to tell it apart from sibling retrieval tools like get_context or expand_context.

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 says when to use it: 'when the user wants more context than a single cited chunk provides.' It does not explicitly name an alternative tool or describe when not to use it, but the referenced use case gives solid guidance without requiring further inference.

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