Get Full Document

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

Annotations already establish that this is a read-only, idempotent, non-destructive operation, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value by revealing that the response contains all pages and transcripts, but it does not disclose potential payload size, response structure, or how optional parameters shape the returned data. Given annotation coverage, this is acceptable but not rich.

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 a single concise sentence with no filler. The key information—what the tool returns—is front-loaded, and every word contributes to the definition.

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?

Without an output schema, the description noteing 'all pages and transcripts' gives a basic idea of return content. However, optional parameters like status, stats, and nrOfTranscripts are not connected to what the returned document will contain, and the relationship to the XML variant is unspecified. Annotations and schema cover safety and parameter names, leaving the behavioral gaps at a moderate level.

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 input schema documents all five parameters with descriptions, achieving 100% schema description coverage, so the description is not required to repeat parameter details. The description's mention of 'including all pages and transcripts' loosely relates to the nrOfTranscripts parameter but adds no concrete parameter-level meaning beyond the 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 states a specific action ('Get') on a clear resource ('the full document') and specifies scope ('including all pages and transcripts'), which distinguishes it from page-level and collection-level tools. However, the near-identical sibling transkribus_doc_get_fulldoc_xml exists, and the description does not clarify the format difference between this tool and that XML variant, so it falls 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?

The phrase 'full document including all pages and transcripts' implies this is the tool to use when an agent needs the complete document rather than individual pages or snippets. There is no explicit guidance about when to choose it over alternatives such as transkribus_doc_get_fulldoc_xml or transkribus_doc_get_pages, so usage context is only implied.

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