spv_documents_get

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine value by enumerating what the record contains (ANAF ids, dates, archive status, download errors), but says nothing about behavior for missing UUIDs or access to non-archived documents.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler; the parenthetical field list is informative rather than bloated. Slightly more structure (e.g. a clause on the UUID or on sibling choice) could be added without cost.

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 carries the return-value burden, and it does list the main returned data categories. For a two-parameter read tool with full annotation coverage this is close to sufficient; only the missing-entity behavior and the companyId override caveat are absent.

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 100% and both parameters (uuid, companyId) are documented in the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies. The description adds no meaning beyond the schema; notably it ignores the companyId override parameter and its env-var fallback interaction.

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 one archived SPV document') plus the scope of returned data, which distinguishes a single-record fetch from the sibling list/stats tools by implication of 'one'. It never names spv_documents_list or spv_documents_download explicitly, so the contrast is inferred rather than stated.

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 gives no when-to-use or when-not guidance and does not point to alternatives such as spv_documents_download for the file itself or spv_documents_list for enumeration. 'archived' hints at scope but the agent must guess the boundary on its own.

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