Core Content Services MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It describes what the tool does (retrieves annotation metadata) and mentions error handling (returns ToolError for non-existent documents or errors), but it lacks details on permissions, rate limits, or side effects, which are important for a read operation in a document management 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?

The description is appropriately sized and front-loaded, starting with the core purpose and usage, followed by parameter and return details. However, the return structure is detailed extensively, which might be verbose given that an output schema exists, though it helps compensate for the lack of annotations.

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 complexity of document annotations, the description is fairly complete: it explains the purpose, parameter, and detailed return structure. Since an output schema exists, the detailed return explanation is somewhat redundant but adds value due to no annotations. It could improve by addressing permissions or error specifics.

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?

The schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explicitly defines the single parameter 'document_id' with a clear explanation ('The document ID to retrieve annotations for'), adding essential meaning beyond the basic schema, which only provides a title and type without context.

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 purpose with a specific verb ('retrieves') and resource ('annotations associated with a document'), distinguishing it from siblings like get_document_properties or get_document_text_extract by focusing exclusively on annotations rather than general properties or text content.

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 clear context for when to use this tool ('to analyze document annotations or to identify specific annotations for further processing'), but it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives among the sibling tools, such as for general document properties or text extraction.

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