Get IT Glue Document

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, covering safety and idempotency. The description adds valuable behavioral context about the response format: section content is HTML, markdown output converts to plain text, images are represented as relative paths or listed by ID, and the possibility of truncation. This goes beyond the annotations and informs the agent about output quirks.

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 compact and front-loaded: it starts with the action and resource, then adds key details about output format and truncation handling. Every sentence is informative with no wasted words. It efficiently covers the most important points an agent needs to know.

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?

Given the tool has an output schema, the description doesn't need to explain return values in detail. The description covers the main functionality, output format nuances, and fallback to section-level retrieval. It could mention pagination or limits more explicitly, but the truncation hint partially covers that. The tool is relatively simple with only two parameters, so the description is sufficient.

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 the schema fully documents both parameters (document_id and response_format). The description adds meaning by explaining the markdown output's treatment of HTML content and images, which is not in the schema. This is useful but not essential for invoking the tool correctly; the schema already provides the parameter details.

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 clearly states the tool retrieves a specific document by ID, including all its sections and content. It distinguishes itself from the sibling itglue_get_document_section by explaining that this tool fetches the whole document, and that individual sections can be fetched separately. This is a specific verb+resource with clear scope.

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 provides clear context on when to use this tool: to get a full document with sections. It also gives a practical usage hint: if the response is truncated, use itglue_get_document_section instead. It doesn't explicitly state when to prefer other tools like itglue_list_documents, but the scope is well defined enough for an agent to select it appropriately.

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