dossier_get

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false. Description adds behavioral context: returns 'status, linked evidence, and download URLs' and notes state dependency 'after CERTIFIED'. No contradictions.

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 concise sentences: first states purpose and output, second gives usage guidance and required params. Efficiently front-loaded with essential information.

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 no output schema, description outlines key return elements (status, linked evidence, download URLs). For a retrieval tool with clear annotations, this is adequate, though structure details are missing.

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 0% schema description coverage, the description must explain parameters. It only names them ('caseFileId and dossierId') without meaning, format, or examples. Insufficient to guide correct invocation.

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?

Clear verb 'Retrieves' and specific resource 'full details of a specific dossier including status, linked evidence, and download URLs'. Distinguishes from sibling tools like dossier_list (list) and evidence_get (get evidence) by specifying scope.

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?

States when to use: 'to check current state or get certificate download URLs after CERTIFIED'. Explicitly lists required parameters. However, lacks direct comparison with alternatives like dossier_preview.

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