Get a VeriLock document

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows this is a safe read operation. The description adds 'public metadata' which implies no special permissions are needed, adding a bit of context beyond the annotations. However, it does not describe what happens if the document doesn't exist or if it's private, or mention any rate limits or authentication requirements beyond public access.

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, compact sentence that conveys the essential purpose without any extraneous detail. It is front-loaded with the action and object, and every word adds value. This is an excellent example of concise, effective description.

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 retrieval tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is adequate. It tells the agent what the tool does and that the data is public. However, given the openWorldHint, it might benefit from clarifying whether it returns data for any document or only those the user has access to, and what constitutes 'public metadata' specifically. Overall, it is sufficient for basic usage but not fully complete.

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% - the only parameter, documentId, is clearly described as 'VeriLock document id or slug'. However, the description doesn't clarify the format of that id/slug beyond what the schema says, such as example values or whether it's a URL-encoded string. The description is consistent but adds no extra meaning 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?

States a specific verb 'Get' and resource 'document', and specifies the content: 'public metadata and signing information'. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like get_certificate or get_audit_events, which focus on other aspects. The title reinforces the purpose, but the description adds the detail about what is retrieved.

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 implies it is for retrieving metadata and signing info, and the readOnlyHint and idempotentHint suggest safe usage. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus siblings like get_signing_status or get_evidence_manifest. This is a gap, as the agent might not know if this is the right tool for a specific signing detail query.

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