de_dip_get_document

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

Annotations already declare the tool read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive, so the description does not need to repeat that. It adds useful behavioral nuance: it fetches exactly one entity by id and that '-text' resource variants return full document text rather than metadata.

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, front-loaded sentence that conveys the core operation without any filler. It is appropriately sized for a simple fetch-by-id tool and every word contributes meaning.

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?

With fully documented parameters, an output schema, and annotations covering safety and idempotence, the definition provides enough for an agent to call the tool correctly. The only notable gap is the absence of explicit sibling differentiation, but that is a minor omission given the otherwise complete structured context.

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 100%, and both parameters already have rich descriptions: doc_id is tied to de_dip_search results with an example, and resource enumerates valid values with the '-text' semantics. The description itself adds no additional parameter-level detail, so the baseline 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 states a specific action ('Fetch'), a clear object ('one entity'), and the retrieval key ('by id'), making the tool's purpose obvious. It distinguishes itself from search-oriented siblings like de_dip_search by emphasizing single-entity retrieval, though it does not explicitly name any alternative tool.

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?

Usage is implied rather than explicit: the doc_id parameter references a de_dip_search result, and the resource description directs users to choose a '-text' variant for full document text. The description does not explain when to prefer this tool over similar siblings such as de_get_text or de_get_act.

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