get_document

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

Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It explicitly mentions the graceful error handling: if doc_id is not found, it returns a list of available doc_ids instead of an error, which is key behavioral context. However, it does not mention potential performance implications (e.g., fetching a large document) or any authentication requirements, so it is not perfect.

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 reasonably concise, with a clear first sentence stating the main purpose, followed by usage guidance and parameter/returns details. It is structured in sections (Args, Returns) for readability. However, the 'Args:' section is somewhat redundant with the schema, and the text could be slightly more streamlined without losing value.

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's simplicity (one parameter, no annotations) and the presence of an output schema, the description is complete. It covers purpose, usage context, parameter semantics, and return behavior. The graceful error handling is a nice touch that prepares the agent for a non-standard response, making it comprehensive.

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 input schema defines doc_id as a string but provides no documentation. The description adds significant meaning by explaining that doc_id matches the field returned by search_documents() and corresponds to the filename in the corpus (e.g., 'hybrid-search.md'), which is not evident from the schema. With 0% schema description coverage, this compensation is crucial and well-executed.

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's purpose: retrieving the full text of a document from a corpus by its doc_id. It uses a specific verb ('Возвращает') and resource ('документ из корпуса'), and it distinguishes itself from siblings by focusing on fetching full text, while search_documents is for searching snippets.

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 explicitly states when to use this tool: after search_documents() when the snippet is insufficient, and provides concrete examples (quoting exact phrasing or reading sections not in the snippet). It also names the sibling tool search_documents as the prior step, making the workflow clear.

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