Документ целиком

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

The annotations already mark this as a read-only, open-world tool, so safety is covered. The description adds one useful behavioral fact: the result includes every field and tabular sections, which signals a potentially large payload. It says nothing about size, cost, or truncation behavior, so it adds some value but not rich context.

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?

Two short sentences with no filler. The core behavior comes first, and the Ref_Key provenance follows as supporting context.

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 read-only fetch with full schema coverage and an output schema, the description covers what the tool returns and how to get the required identifier. Nothing necessary is missing, although a note about payload size for documents with many tabular rows would have made it 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 coverage is 100%, so all three parameters are already documented, including the hint that database defaults when omitted. The description only reinforces that the lookup needs a document type and a Ref_Key, plus where the Ref_Key comes from, which is marginal value over the schema. The baseline 3 is right.

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 concrete verb and resource: returns a document by type and Ref_Key, with all fields including tabular sections. This is enough to distinguish it from read.document.search_documents, which it names as the source of the Ref_Key. It falls slightly short of a full 5 because it does not explicitly contrast with the other per-document readers such as read.accounting.get_document_postings.

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 an implicit workflow by saying the Ref_Key comes from search_documents or payment history, which tells an agent that this is a fetch-by-id step after a search. It does not state when not to use it, for example instead of get_document_postings for accounting entries, so it is clear on context but stops short of explicit alternatives.

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