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. It only says 'Fetch', which implies a read-only operation, but reveals nothing about error handling (e.g., behavior when not found), authentication, or side effects. This is a minimal disclosure of 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?

The description is exactly two sentences: the first states the purpose, the second provides an illustrative example. Both sentences earn their place, and the most critical information is front-loaded. No redundant or vague wording.

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?

The tool is simple (2 params, no nesting) and has an output schema, so return values are covered externally. The description adequately explains the input semantics and usage for a basic fetch. It lacks nuance about edge cases or access constraints, but these are not essential given the tool's simplicity and the presence of an output schema.

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 schema has 0% description coverage for parameters, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning by labeling docType as the document type and name as the primary key, with a concrete example. However, it does not explain parameter formats, constraints, or how they relate beyond the example, leaving some ambiguity.

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') with a resource ('a single document') and identifies the key parameters (DocType and name). The example further clarifies the exact operation. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_documents (multiple) and create/update/delete (mutations).

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?

Usage is implied rather than explicit: the description states it fetches a single document by key, which suggests using it when the primary key is known. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions (e.g., 'use list_documents to browse'). The example demonstrates a call but not when to choose this tool over siblings.

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