get_document_content

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It says nothing about permissions, whether large documents are truncated, pagination, or what happens with non-text/binary documents, which is a notable gap for a content-retrieval tool.

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 tight sentences with the action front-loaded followed by the use case. 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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description should say more about what comes back (raw text, truncation, encoding) and any access requirements. It covers the basic intent but leaves the agent guessing about the return payload.

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 0% and the single 'id' parameter is bare, but the description does clarify that the ID refers to a specific document. It adds no format constraints, valid range, or relation to other identifiers, so it only partially compensates 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 and resource: retrieve the text content of a document identified by ID. This distinguishes it reasonably from the metadata-oriented 'get_document' and the image-oriented 'get_document_thumbnail', though it never names those siblings explicitly.

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?

Gives a clear use condition: 'when you need to read or analyze the actual document text.' That differentiates it from metadata or thumbnail retrieval in spirit, but it stops short of naming alternatives (get_document, download_document) or excluding cases (e.g., binary/non-text documents).

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