detail

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden. 'Get' implies a read-only operation, and the description doesn't suggest any side effects. It also provides example ID formats, which is helpful context. However, it doesn't explicitly state read-only or mention rate limits/authentication, so a 4 rather than 5.

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 concise: two sentences plus a well-formatted args section. It's front-loaded with the purpose and immediately clarifies usage. Every sentence earns its place.

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 single-parameter tool with no annotations or output schema, the description covers the essential aspects: what it does, where the ID comes from, and example formats. It lacks detail on the exact contents of 'full metadata', but that's a minor gap given the tool's simplicity.

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 coverage is 0%, and the description fully compensates by explaining doc_id as a Document ID from search results with concrete examples of ID formats (md5, hn, doi). This adds significant meaning beyond the schema's bare type string.

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 uses a specific verb 'Get' with a resource 'full metadata for a document', clearly distinguishing it from the sibling 'search' tool which presumably finds documents. The instruction to use IDs from search results reinforces its role as a lookup 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?

The description states to use IDs from search results, implying this tool is used after a search to retrieve details. It provides clear context but doesn't explicitly mention exclusions or alternative tools beyond the implication.

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