get_frmr_document

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It describes what the tool returns (metadata, raw JSON, summary) and mentions KSI categories and MAS requirements as examples of content. However, it doesn't disclose important behavioral aspects like error conditions, authentication requirements, rate limits, or response format details.

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 efficiently structured with three sentences that each add value: stating the tool's purpose, providing usage context, and giving a concrete example. There's no wasted text, and the most important information (what the tool does) comes first.

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 retrieval tool with 2 parameters, 0% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description does a good job explaining purpose and usage but lacks details about the return format, error handling, and authentication requirements. The absence of an output schema means the description should ideally explain what the response contains, which it only partially addresses.

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 compensates well by explaining the 'path' parameter's purpose and providing a concrete example ('FRMR.KSI.key-security-indicators.json'). It also mentions the 'type' parameter indirectly through the enum values (KSI, MAS, etc.) in the context of what content can be retrieved.

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 verb 'retrieve' and resource 'FRMR document', specifying what content is returned (metadata, raw JSON, summary). It distinguishes from sibling tools like list_frmr_documents by indicating this is for retrieving specific documents rather than listing available ones.

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 guidance on when to use this tool ('First use list_frmr_documents to find available documents, then use this tool with the path') and gives a specific example for KSI content. It clearly differentiates from the sibling list_frmr_documents tool.

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