Get document

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint false), the description discloses that attachments are not part of the result, that description can be empty for block editor content, and that editing is unsupported. These are significant behavioral traits that the agent would not know from annotations alone.

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 compact yet information-dense, with clear paragraphs for purpose, usage, pitfalls, and cross-references. Every sentence earns its place, and the use of 'Pitfalls' makes unusual behaviors easy to spot. No fluff or redundancy.

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 read operation with one parameter and an output schema, the description covers all critical aspects: what is returned, what is not returned (attachments), potential empty description, and related tools. The existence of an output schema means return format details are already external, so the description is fully 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 only parameter document_id is fully described in the input schema, including its origin ('from list_documents') and format. The description reinforces this by cross-referencing list_documents for the id, but does not add meaning beyond what the schema already provides. Since schema coverage is 100%, the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 opens with 'Read one document with its full description text', which is a specific verb and resource. It clearly differentiates from siblings like list_documents (listing all) and download_attachment (files) by focusing on a single document's description text.

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 explicitly states 'Use it after `list_documents` when the title is not enough', providing a clear when-to-use condition. It also names alternatives for attachments (list_attachments) and files (download_attachment), and notes that editing is unsupported, giving complete guidance on when not to use it.

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