Get received document (expense)

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already declares this is a safe read, so the description does not need to repeat that. It adds some domain context ('expense, passive credit note') and 'with full details', but does not disclose other behavioral aspects like error handling, required permissions, or the meaning of 'full details' relative to the fieldset parameter. No contradiction with 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 is a single sentence of about 14 words, front-loaded with the verb 'Get'. It includes the resource type and the key qualifier 'by ID' without any redundant phrasing. Every word earns its place, making it highly 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?

For a simple get-by-id tool with 3 parameters (one required) and full schema coverage, the description provides adequate context: it identifies the resource type, the scope, and the default detail level ('full details' aligns with the default fieldset 'detailed'). However, it does not mention the fieldset option explicitly, though the schema covers that. Overall, it is complete enough for an agent to use correctly, especially given the annotations.

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 100%, so the parameters are fully documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level information; it only references 'by ID', which maps to document_id. The fieldset and company_id parameters are not mentioned in the description, but the schema already explains them adequately.

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 'Get a single received document... by ID', which specifies the action, resource, and scope. It distinguishes from siblings like get_issued_document (received vs issued) and list_received_documents (single vs list), and clarifies the domain by naming examples like 'expense, passive credit note'.

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 gives clear context: this is for retrieving one document by ID, implying you already have a document_id. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the phrase 'single... by ID' effectively communicates when to use it vs list tools. Lacks an explicit pointer to list_received_documents for listing or get_issued_document for issued documents.

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