get_document_content

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It describes the operation as 'Fetch' and lists the return structure, but does not disclose potential errors, authentication requirements, or limits. Basic behavioral transparency is present but not rich.

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 well-structured, with a clear main sentence, a returns line, and an args section. Every sentence adds useful information, and there is no redundancy.

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 tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description sufficiently covers purpose, parameter source, and return format. It lacks explicit error behavior or alternative tool guidance, but these are not critical for successful invocation.

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?

With 0% schema coverage, the description fully compensates by explaining that 'uri' is a signed document URI and specifying exactly where it comes from (get_message() events[] or external_ref). This adds significant meaning beyond the schema's simple 'Uri' label.

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 it fetches HTML content of a clinical document or exam result, specifying a specific verb and resource. It also implicitly distinguishes itself from sibling tool download_document by focusing on HTML content rather than document download.

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?

It provides clear context by stating the uri comes from get_message() response, which guides the agent on the prerequisite step. However, it does not explicitly mention when to use this tool instead of alternatives like download_document.

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