Get Statement Data

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

Annotations already mark readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable behavioral context: json returns inline data, other formats return time-limited links, the summary field is the source of truth, translation rules, and data_mode projections. No contradictions 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 long but every sentence carries essential information. It front-loads the primary purpose and usage context, then details format and data_mode behaviors. While it could be tightened, the complexity of the tool justifies the length, and there is no filler.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must explain return values. It does: json returns inline data, others return download links, summary is always present. It covers data_mode projections and pagination parameters are in the schema. However, it doesn't explicitly discuss pagination behavior (e.g., when to use offset), relying on the schema's limit/offset descriptions, which is a minor 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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds beyond schema: limit defaults (500, capped at 2000, 500 for original), offset usage, data_mode defaults per format, and the interaction with output_format. It clarifies the 'original' mode's role in evaluate_benchmark, which the schema hints at but doesn't fully explain.

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 tool fetches 'full converted data for a previously processed document,' distinguishing it from convert_statement (which processes) and list_statements (which lists). It also explicitly positions it as the follow-up after a processing status, giving a precise verb and resource.

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?

It provides explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Use this after convert_statement returns a processing status, or to re-fetch results.' It also details the workflow for evaluate_benchmark (fetch original data) and explains format-specific behavior, giving the agent clear context for choosing this tool over siblings.

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