get_document

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety and scope are covered by structured data. The description contributes the kind of content returned (payments, balance, overdue days), but says nothing about not-found behavior or what happens when the number matches no document — a modest addition over 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?

A single front-loaded sentence with zero filler; the scope and the returned content are both packed into one clause without repetition.

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 with full schema coverage and an output schema in place, the description is essentially sufficient — the agent knows what it gets back. Minor gap: it never states behavior for an unknown or non-existent document number.

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 'number' parameter is documented with an example (INV-0007), so the schema carries the load. The description only implies the input is a quote-or-invoice number via 'one quote or invoice' and adds no format or matching rules beyond the schema.

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 uses a specific resource ('one quote or invoice') and enumerates the payload (items, totals, payments, balance, overdue days), which clearly separates it from the list_* siblings. It lacks an explicit verb ('retrieve/fetch') but the intent is unambiguous, and the 'one' framing distinguishes it from batch tools.

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: an agent can infer this is the tool for pulling full detail on a single document, but there is no statement of when to prefer it over list_invoices, list_quotes, or overdue_report, and no prerequisites or exclusions are given.

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