document_options

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safe-read profile is covered and the description's 'Read' is consistent with it. The description adds the content scope (types and defaults) but says nothing about return format, pagination, or what the integer input represents. With annotations carrying the safety burden, this is adequate but thin.

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, zero waste, with the primary purpose front-loaded and the sibling routing second. Nothing could be cut without losing 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?

For a one-parameter read tool with no output schema and annotations covering safety, the description gives the general subject matter but omits both the meaning of the required 'type' input and any indication of the shape of what is returned. It is minimally workable but has clear gaps.

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 0% and the single parameter is an untyped-semantics integer named 'type'. The description never explains what this integer identifies (a document type id?) or how it affects the result, so it fails to compensate for the schema gap.

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 ('Read') and resource ('document types and business defaults'), which is more informative than the bare name 'document_options'. It also implicitly distinguishes itself from prepare_morning_action, though the phrase 'business defaults' remains somewhat abstract.

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?

Explicitly names the alternative ('Use prepare_morning_action for full document fields'), giving a condition that routes the agent. It stops short of stating when this tool is the right choice versus the many other document siblings (get_document, search_documents), so it is clear but not exhaustive.

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