rx_get_document

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, and the description reinforces this with 'Только чтение' while adding useful boundary context: this tool does not return document text, which prevents a wrong-tool call. It does not, however, describe pagination or size limits for the version list.

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?

Dense and front-loaded: payload contents first, then usage, then the Id source, then the sibling boundary and read-only note. Every sentence carries information, though the 'Только чтение' clause slightly repeats the readOnlyHint annotation.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description correctly compensates by enumerating the returned fields, and it closes the biggest gap for a document tool by stating that text is returned elsewhere. Complete enough for an agent to call it correctly.

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?

With a single parameter at 100% schema description coverage, the schema already documents the id fully ('число после # в строке rx_find_documents'). The description's note that the Id comes from rx_find_documents reinforces provenance but adds no format or syntax detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 a specific verb and resource ('Карточка документа') and enumerates exactly what the card contains: вид, регистрация, состояния, автор, подразделение, список версий с Id. It also explicitly distinguishes itself from rx_get_document_text, so an agent can tell the two siblings apart without opening a schema.

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?

Gives explicit when-to-use ('чтобы узнать статус документа или Id нужной версии'), names the source of the input ('Id документа берётся из rx_find_documents'), and routes the complementary case to rx_get_document_text. Nothing is left to inference.

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