workiva_get_document

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does add value by explaining the 'expand' parameter and that document_id is a UUID, but it does not state whether the operation is read-only (though implied by 'get'), what resource types are supported, or any error handling behavior.

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 extremely concise and front-loaded, with a clear one-line purpose followed by a brief parameter listing. Every sentence earns its place, and the format is easy to scan.

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 getter tool with an output schema, the description covers the core purpose and both parameters adequately. It lacks usage guidance and context about related tools, but given the tool's low complexity and the presence of an output schema, it is largely 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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains document_id as 'the document UUID' and expand as 'comma-separated subresources' with an example, which provides meaningful semantic context beyond the bare parameter names in 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?

The description clearly states the tool retrieves document details, which is a specific verb+resource combination. However, it does not distinguish this from sibling tools like workiva_list_documents or workiva_export_document, leaving some ambiguity about when to prefer this one.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that list_documents is for browsing or export_document is for downloading, nor does it specify any prerequisites or exclusions.

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