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 is covered. The description adds what the payload contains (metadata, notes, custom fields) and that text access is better served elsewhere, but says nothing about error behavior for a missing/inaccessible document ID.

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 short sentences, zero waste, with the primary action stated first and the alternative path second. Nothing to trim.

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?

Output schema exists so return shape needs no explanation, and annotations carry the safety profile. The description still covers what is returned and how it relates to the resource path, leaving no actionable gap for calling it correctly.

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 both parameters are documented, including the default and the 'only if you cannot read MCP resources' caveat for include_content. The description restates that resource preference rather than adding new parameter detail, so baseline 3 applies.

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 with explicit scope: 'a single document's full metadata, with its notes and custom fields.' This clearly separates it from the search_/list_ siblings, which operate over collections rather than one document.

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 explicit routing guidance: use the MCP resource at paperless://documents/{document_id} as the preferred way to read text, i.e. when-not to use this tool's content path. That is a genuine alternative with a selection condition, not just context.

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