Get sales document

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds essentially nothing beyond that and the schema enum: no mention of behavior on a missing id, no note that the id and type must correspond to the same document, and no auth or rate-limit context.

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 front-loaded sentence: verb, resource enumeration, and the id selector. It is slightly inflated by listing all seven types that already exist in the enum, but nothing is genuinely wasted.

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 two-parameter read tool with no output schema and readOnly annotations, the essentials are present, but the description never indicates what a fetched sales document contains or how failures are surfaced. That leaves the agent guessing about return shape and error cases.

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 only 50% (id is documented as a Lexware UUID; type is an undocumented enum). The prose spells out the seven document types in readable form, which slightly clarifies the type parameter, but it duplicates the enum values rather than explaining constraints or what happens on a type/id mismatch.

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?

"Read ... by id" is a specific verb+resource, and the enumeration of document kinds (invoice, credit note, quotation, etc.) tells an agent exactly what domain object this returns. It stops short of differentiating itself from get_voucher, which an agent could plausibly confuse with sales documents.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this versus get_voucher or the list_* siblings, and no prerequisites such as needing a prior list/search call to obtain the id. Usage is only implied by the verb "Read".

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