get_document_content

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses bounded-window returns, default max_chars=8000, returned content_length/pagination metadata, and that over-budget requests fail rather than truncate silently. It does not explicitly characterize the operation as a safe read, but the 'get' framing plus pagination detail is strong behavioral context.

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, front-loaded with the core action and return shape, then the paging instruction, then the alternative-tool routing. No filler sentences.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must and does describe the return values (window text, content_length, pagination metadata) and paging mechanics, leaving nothing an agent needs to call it correctly.

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 67% (id undocumented). The description compensates by explaining what offset and max_chars do together (read successive windows) and restating the 8000 default and the failure mode for oversized requests, adding usage meaning beyond the raw schema fields.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Get the text content of a specific document by ID') plus the bounding behavior, which clearly separates it from get_document (metadata) and download_document (raw file). An agent can distinguish it from its many siblings without opening a 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?

Explicitly states when to page with offset + max_chars and names the alternative ('use the download_document resource for bulk access to the raw file'). The selection condition between this tool and the sibling is fully spelled out.

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