get_document

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose two useful behaviors: the return is the full text (not a summary or metadata), and only approved documents are eligible. It says nothing about what happens for unapproved or missing doc_ids, size/truncation limits on full text, or required permissions.

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 padding. The resource and the scoping constraint (full text, approved, single document) come before the parameter detail, so it is properly front-loaded.

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 one-parameter read tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the essentials: what it returns (full text), which documents are eligible (approved), and the key format. The remaining gap is failure behavior for unapproved or unknown IDs, which is minor but not negligible given the explicit "approved" qualifier.

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 lone doc_id parameter is undocumented in structured data. The description partially compensates by giving a concrete format example (MHB-OPS-001), but it does not say where an agent obtains a valid doc_id or whether other identifier schemes are accepted.

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?

"Fetch the full text of one approved document by doc_id" gives a specific verb (fetch), a specific resource (full text of a document), and the exact key parameter. It implicitly contrasts with the retrieval-by-search sibling, but never names search_knowledge or list_sources, so differentiation from siblings is left to inference.

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 word "approved" hints at a precondition, and "by doc_id" implies the identifier must already be known, which suggests this is a follow-up to search_knowledge. However, there is no explicit statement of when to use this versus search_knowledge, nor any stated exclusion or prerequisite.

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