get_document_content

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the agent knows this is a safe read operation. The description reinforces this by describing the tool as reading text, but does not add further behavioral context such as response size, format, or error behavior. Still, it is consistent and not misleading.

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 sentences with no filler. The first sentence states the core operation and the second gives the usage guidance; every word earns its place.

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, one-parameter, read-only getter, the description covers the core operation and the return value ('text content') despite lacking an output schema. It could mention error conditions or content format, but given the tool's simplicity and the readOnlyHint annotation, it is sufficiently 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?

The input schema only defines id as a required number with no description (0% coverage). The description compensates by identifying the id as the identifier of a specific document, clarifying that the parameter is a document ID rather than an arbitrary number. It does not explain where the ID comes from or any format nuances, but for a single parameter this is minimally adequate.

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 the exact operation ('Get'), resource ('text content'), and target ('specific document by ID'). The phrase 'text content' differentiates it from siblings like get_document_metadata, get_document_preview, and get_document_thumbnail, though it does not name them 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?

Provides an explicit when-to-use condition: 'Use this when you need to read or analyze the actual document text.' This clearly signals the intended use case, but does not mention when to prefer alternative getters (e.g., for metadata or previews), so it lacks explicit exclusions.

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