get_documents

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the burden. It discloses the read-only owner-level access via the tier tag and the 1000-ID limit, which are useful behavioral constraints. However, it doesn't describe behavior for invalid or missing IDs, response format, or any additional side effects. It's minimal but not misleading.

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?

Description is three short sentences, each purposeful: core action, API mapping, and permission tier. No unnecessary words or repetition.

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 simple ID-based fetch tool, the description covers purpose, parameter semantics, and the endpoint. The absence of an output schema isn't a problem since 'full document records' implies the return. However, it lacks guidance about error handling and alternative search tools, making it slightly less complete.

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 only declares documentIDs as an array of numbers. The description adds 'up to 1000' and frames them as document IDs, giving meaning beyond the schema. Since schema coverage is 0%, this compensation is valuable, though it doesn't specify array nesting or type details beyond schema.

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 retrieves full document records for up to 1000 IDs, specifying the resource and scope. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with sibling search_documents, so it stops short of full differentiation.

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 mention of when to use this tool versus search_documents or other get_* siblings. The 'Maps to POST /document/get' is an implementation detail, not usage guidance. The existence of search_documents implies this is for ID-based retrieval, but that distinction is left implicit.

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