get_received_documents

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the transparency burden. 'Fetch' clearly implies a read-only, non-destructive operation, which is the key behavioral trait. However, it does not disclose additional behaviors such as pagination, date-range constraints, or potential API 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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the main action and resource. Every word contributes meaning, and there is no redundancy or filler.

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?

Despite being concise, the description combined with the fully documented schema and output schema provides sufficient context for correct invocation and interpretation. The main gap is the lack of explicit usage differentiation, which is addressed in the usage_guidelines dimension.

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?

The schema has 100% coverage for all 6 parameters, so the description does not need to add parameter details. The description adds no extra semantics beyond the schema, but this is acceptable given the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 action ('Fetch') and the resource ('documents RECEIVED by your business'), with a concrete example (supplier invoices) and source system (myDATA). The emphasis on 'RECEIVED' distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_transmitted_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?

The word 'RECEIVED' implicitly contrasts with transmitted documents, suggesting when to use this tool. However, there is no explicit when-to-use vs. alternatives, no exclusions, and no mention of the sibling tools or situations where this tool is inappropriate.

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