get_document

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

Annotations provide readOnlyHint=true, but the description adds substantial behavioral nuance beyond that: content is excluded by default, version handling, and the subtle page_count vs. root version behavior. It also gives a concrete example (password-protected PDF) and a practical warning. No contradiction 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 dense but every sentence earns its place: purpose, content exclusion, version handling, and a cautionary note. It is front-loaded with the main purpose and logically structured, avoiding 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?

Given the complexity (versions, content exclusion, page_count semantics) and no output schema, the description covers all essential aspects an agent needs to call the tool correctly. It clearly states what is included and excluded, how versions behave, and which fields are unreliable for readability checks.

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% but there is only one parameter 'id' of type number, which is self-explanatory. The description reinforces it with 'by ID'. While it doesn't elaborate on format, the trivial nature of the parameter makes this sufficient.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Get a specific document by ID with full details including correspondent, document type, tags, and custom fields.' It explicitly differentiates from get_document_content by stating content is excluded by default and naming the alternative. It also distinguishes the version-related semantics from get_document_metadata.

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 gives explicit when-to-use vs when-not-to-use: it says to use get_document_content when content is needed, and it warns against using page_count to judge readability. It also references version management tools (upload_document_version etc.) providing clear routing among siblings.

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