mop_get_document

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does state what it returns ('Document-Objekt mit Metadaten und Content') and the include_xml option, which adds value. However, it does not explicitly disclose that this is a read-only operation with no side effects, nor does it mention error behavior or permissions for a getter that is likely read-only. The description is adequate but not rich on 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?

The description is well-structured with clear sections (PURPOSE, WHEN TO USE, WHEN NOT TO USE, Args, Returns). Every sentence adds value and it is front-loaded with the main purpose. No fluff or repetition beyond the minor overlap between the title and PURPOSE, which is acceptable.

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 simple two-parameter getter tool with an output schema, the description is complete. It covers purpose, usage guidelines, parameter semantics, and return shape. The presence of an output schema means return values need not be further explained. The inclusion of alternatives in the WHEN NOT TO USE section rounds out the guidance.

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 0%, so parameters would be unclear without description. The description explains both parameters well: 'Die xml:id des Dokuments' for document_id and 'Ob TEI-XML inkludiert werden soll' for include_xml. However, it lists 'ctx: FastMCP Context' as an argument that is not in the schema, which could confuse the agent if it attempts to pass it explicitly.

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 opens with 'Vollständiges Dokument abrufen' (retrieve complete document) and states PURPOSE as 'Detaillierte Ansicht eines spezifischen Dokuments' (detailed view of a specific document). It clearly names the verb and resource, and differentiates from browse/search tools in the WHEN NOT TO USE section.

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?

Explicit WHEN TO USE ('User möchte ein Aktenstück lesen', 'Nach erfolgreicher Suche → Details anzeigen') and WHEN NOT TO USE ('Für Übersicht → nutze browse_documents() oder search_documents()') with named alternatives. This is exactly the kind of guidance needed.

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