localgate_get_document

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. "Fetch" implies a read-only operation and the return contents are mentioned (metadata and chunk texts), but there is no explicit statement about side effects, permissions, rate limits, pagination, or error behavior.

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 sentence with no filler; the core action, resource, return content, and key parameter are front-loaded efficiently.

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 one-parameter read tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the basic purpose and the returned fields. However, it omits sibling-routing guidance and parameter format details, leaving some gaps for an agent choosing between document retrieval and search.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for the single undocumented parameter. Saying "by doc_id" identifies the parameter's role as the document identifier, but it adds no format, matching rules, or example beyond the parameter name itself.

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 uses a specific verb ("Fetch") and resource ("one indexed document's metadata and chunk texts") with a clear scope ("by doc_id"). This distinguishes it clearly from sibling tools localgate_search and localgate_status without needing to open the schema.

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?

No guidance is given about when to use this tool instead of localgate_search or localgate_status, nor about prerequisites or exclusions. The description only states what it does, leaving usage inference to the agent.

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