get_doc

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does disclose that the full markdown body is returned, useful for deciding whether fetching is worthwhile. It does not state that this is a read-only operation, that the id must come from search_docs (only the schema says that), or how missing articles behave.

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 sentence, front-loaded with the action and resource, with no redundant or filler wording. Nothing could be removed without losing information.

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 single-record read with a fully documented two-parameter schema and an output schema, the description covers what the tool returns. It could add a note on error behavior for unknown ids or a pointer to search_docs for id discovery, but the essential content is present.

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%, so both parameters are fully documented in the schema, including the doc_id origin and the conditional access_token. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond what the schema already provides, making 3 the baseline.

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 and resource ('Fetch one help-center article') and states the scope of the return ('full markdown body'), which clearly separates it from the sibling search_docs. It doesn't name search_docs explicitly, so it stops short of full sibling 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?

Usage is implied: retrieve a single known article's full content, presumably after search_docs yields an id. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not or named alternative, leaving the agent to infer the search-then-fetch pattern.

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