Get document

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint, covering the safety profile. The description adds the useful behavioral detail that the tool can look up by either Billingo id or vendor_id, but it does not disclose return shape, error behavior, or exclusions. Given the annotations, this is adequate 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 a single front-loaded sentence with no filler. It states the core behavior first, then immediately provides the essential parameter instruction. Every part earns its place.

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 read-only lookup with annotations covering safety and a schema covering both parameters, the description provides enough to invoke the tool correctly. It is slightly incomplete in not steering the agent away from sibling document tools, but that is a minor gap given the simplicity of the operation.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaning beyond the schema by stating that either id or vendor_id should be provided, and by explaining that vendor_id is the caller's external reference set at document creation. This clarifies the role and relationship of the two parameters.

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 states a specific action ('Returns') and a specific resource ('a single document'), clearly distinguishing from list-style tools. However, it does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools like billingo_download_document or billingo_get_document_public_url, so it stops short of a 5.

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 gives parameter-level guidance ('Give either id or vendor_id') but does not explain when to choose this tool over the many document-related siblings. There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, so an agent could confuse it with download or public-URL retrieval tools.

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