Get Full Document

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the licensing requirement, the one-time purchase model, and the environment-variable fallback, which is useful. However, it does not describe the return format or potential error conditions, leaving some uncertainty for the agent about what the call actually yields.

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?

Three sentences with the core action front-loaded. The licensing and fallback details are relevant, though the pricing specifics could be trimmed without losing essential usage guidance. Overall, it is compact and structured effectively.

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 2-parameter fetch tool, the description covers the key need-to-know items: what is fetched, the license requirement, the environment fallback, and the documentId source. The absence of an output schema makes the missing return format a minor gap, but the term 'full text' plus the simple nature of the tool keeps it reasonably complete.

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 pricing and purchase details but does not meaningfully expand on the semantics of documentId or licenseKey beyond what the schema already states. It reinforces the fallback behavior but adds little new parameter-level meaning.

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 verb ('Fetch'), a clear resource ('the full text of a previously generated document'), and immediately distinguishes it from the sibling generate_* tools by focusing on retrieval of existing content. This is unambiguous and leaves no doubt about what the tool does.

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 makes it clear this tool is for retrieving previously generated documents, implying it should be used after a generate_* tool. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the sibling tools are all generators, so the intended context is strongly implied.

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