bopa_document

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It doesn't state whether documents are pulled from a remote source, whether the name is a slug/id or a title, what happens when the name doesn't match, or how offset/max_chars affect the returned excerpt. 'Excerpt' hints at truncation but never says the default max_chars is 20000 or that content beyond it is cut.

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?

A single short sentence with no waste, which is good, but its brevity is achieved by omitting necessary information rather than by being tight. It is under-specified rather than concise.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-shape description isn't strictly needed, but this is a document-retrieval tool with three parameters, no annotations, and no guidance on the search/fetch split. The description leaves the agent unsure how to call it correctly against bopa_search, so it is not complete enough.

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%, so the description must compensate and does not. It never explains that 'name' is the lookup key, nor the meaning of offset or max_chars – despite the schema offering only bare 'title' fields. Three underspecified parameters with zero description coverage is a substantial 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 verb (fetch) and resource (BOPA document) plus the lookup key (by name), so the action is identifiable. But it doesn't differentiate from siblings like bopa_search, which is presumably the way to find a document by content rather than fetch one already named. The boundary between the two is not drawn.

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 when-to-use guidance. The most important question an agent faces with a sibling called bopa_search present is when to search versus when to fetch directly, and the description says nothing about this. Offset/max_chars implying partial retrieval is never explained.

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