get_document

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Retrieve,' which implies a read operation, but it does not mention what happens if the document doesn't exist, whether authentication is needed, or any other side effects or error behavior. This is minimal transparency for an unannotated tool.

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 and well-structured: a clear one-line purpose followed by a brief Args list. There is no redundant fluff, and the key information is front-loaded. It loses one point because the Args section is somewhat duplicative of the input schema, but it remains efficient overall.

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 tool's low complexity and the presence of an output schema, the description covers the basic call contract. However, it lacks usage context relative to sibling tools and omits behavioral details such as missing-document handling. It is adequate for a simple read operation but not fully complete for an agent deciding when and how to invoke it.

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 for the bare schema. The Args section adds a little semantic value by clarifying that index is 'the index containing the document' and doc_id is 'The document ID.' However, this largely restates the parameter names and provides no constraints, format, or additional context, so the compensation is partial.

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's function: 'Retrieve a specific document by its ID.' The verb 'Retrieve' and the resource 'specific document' make the operation unambiguous. It also differentiates from siblings like search and count, which do not target a doc_id directly.

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 implies usage: use this tool when you know the document ID and want that specific document. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over search, count, or get_index_mapping, and it offers no exclusions or alternative routing guidance.

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