get_document_type

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 adds 'full details including matching rules', which gives some context about the return payload but does not describe other behavioral aspects such as error behavior (e.g., 404 on missing ID), auth requirements, or rate limits. It does not contradict annotations and adds minimal value beyond them.

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 a single sentence with no filler. It front-loads the verb and resource, includes the scoping detail ('specific ... by ID'), and adds the distinguishing output detail ('full details including matching rules'). Every word contributes to understanding.

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 single-parameter read tool with readOnlyHint, the description is adequate but not rich. It mentions 'full details including matching rules' but does not outline the response structure or edge cases like missing IDs. Given the lack of an output schema, the description leaves the return format to inference, which is a notable gap for an agent that needs to parse results.

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 schema provides only a 'number' type for id with 0% coverage, so the description must explain the parameter. 'by ID' clearly identifies the id as the document type's unique identifier. This adds meaningful semantics beyond the bare schema, even though it does not specify the format or source of the ID.

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 clearly states the verb 'Get', the resource 'specific document type', and the identifier-based access ('by ID'). It adds 'full details including matching rules', which differentiates it from list_document_types and other get_* tools. An agent can immediately recognize what this tool does and how it differs from getting a document or listing types.

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 usage is implied: use this when you have a specific document type ID and need full details. However, there is no explicit mention of when not to use it or alternatives like list_document_types for a collection, nor any context about choosing this over other get_* tools. The guidance is clear enough for a simple read operation but lacks explicit routing.

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