get_document

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

No annotations are present, so the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It states the tool 'gets' a document, implying a read-only operation, but it does not explicitly confirm idempotency, lack of side effects, or any required permissions. For a simple read, this is minimal but acceptable; higher scores would require explicit safety statements.

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 succinct with one sentence, but it lacks essential detail. Conciseness should not come at the cost of completeness; this is under-specified rather than appropriately concise.

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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description should clarify what a 'document' is in Metabase, provide expected return values, or relate to other document tools. It does none of these, leaving significant gaps for an agent.

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 input schema has one parameter 'id' with a description 'Document ID' in the schema, but the context indicates 0% schema description coverage, meaning the tool description fails to add any meaning beyond the raw schema. The description does not explain what constitutes a document or how to obtain the ID.

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 'Get a document by ID in Metabase' clearly states the verb and resource, making the purpose obvious. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like get_public_document or get_public_document_card, which also retrieve documents but with different scopes.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool over alternatives, nor any prerequisites or context. The description does not mention any conditions or exclusions, leaving the agent to guess.

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