Get uploaded document

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile needs no restating. The description does add one genuinely useful behavioral note — that pairings reference records by type and internal gid rather than invoice number — which steers the agent away from expecting a human-readable invoice identifier. It says nothing about behavior for unknown or deleted document ids, which is the remaining gap.

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 sentences, front-loaded with what is returned, with no filler. The second sentence is a caveat that earns its place, though the opening is a bare noun phrase rather than a verb-led statement of action.

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 single-parameter read tool with an output schema and full safety annotations, most of the burden is already carried by structured fields, so the description is nearly sufficient. What remains missing is where document_id comes from and what happens on a miss — details an agent needs to invoke this correctly on the first try.

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 description coverage is 0% and the description never mentions document_id, so it adds no meaning beyond the bare string type in the schema. An agent must guess the expected format (internal id, UUID, file key) and whether the id comes from list_uploaded_documents.

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 names a specific resource and enumerates what it carries: original file name, tags, and paired bookkeeping records. The lead phrase "One uploaded document" distinguishes it from the plural sibling list_uploaded_documents, though it never states the retrieval verb explicitly and does not call out download_uploaded_document as the byte-returning alternative.

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?

There is no guidance on when to reach for this tool versus list_uploaded_documents or download_uploaded_document, and no prerequisites or error conditions are mentioned. The only implicit usage signal is the singular "One uploaded document," which the agent must infer.

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