get_document

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

Annotations already mark readOnlyHint=true, but the description adds valuable behavioral detail: the nature of content_html (raw homePageContent HTML, inline prose only), the dependency on it for update_document, and the warning not to feed back a blanked body. These go beyond the annotation and help the agent avoid mistakes.

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 concise yet information-dense. It uses two short paragraphs: the first states the core purpose, the second details the optional flag and critical caveats. No filler words; every sentence contributes actionable guidance.

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 output schema exists (handling return structure), the description covers the essential aspects: the tool's purpose, the optional behavior, and cross-tool dependencies. It also warns about a subtle failure mode (blanked body). This is complete for a read-only metadata retrieval tool.

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?

Since the schema already provides descriptions for all four parameters (100% coverage), the baseline is 3. The description adds substantial meaning for include_home_page_content_html, explaining its purpose for round-trip editing and its relationship to raw HTML, which exceeds the schema's one-line description. Other parameters are already well-schema-described.

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 explicitly states the tool retrieves document metadata and enumerates the fields (title, type, status, timestamps, editors, custom fields). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools that handle attachments or content rendering.

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 provides explicit usage guidance by naming read_document as the alternative for rendered content with headings and embedded work items, and by linking include_home_page_content_html to update_document for round-trip editing. This tells the agent when to use this tool versus alternatives.

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