sd_get_document_passages

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and explains key behavioral traits: query acts as a filter/highlight, division/page filter by @n, context_size controls context characters, and max_passages limits results. It also states the return type (Passage objects). It does not address error handling or side effects, but the read-only nature is clearly implied by 'Retrieve' and the parameter descriptions.

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) that are easy to parse. Despite being relatively long, every sentence provides actionable information, and the front-loading of purpose and usage makes it efficient.

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?

Given the six-parameter input schema, no annotations, and an existing output schema, the description covers all essential aspects: purpose, usage context, parameter semantics, and return behavior. It explicitly mentions the return type and provides enough context for correct tool selection and invocation.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description fully compensates by explaining every parameter: document_id is the xml:id, query is an optional search term, division filters by @n, page filters by pb/@n, context_size is characters of context, and max_passages is the maximum number of passages. These details add meaningful semantics beyond the raw schema.

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 clearly states the tool retrieves text passages from a specific document, distinguishing it from search and full-document retrieval by naming alternatives like get_document_by_id. It uses specific verbs and resource references, making the purpose unmistakable.

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 includes explicit 'WHEN TO USE' and 'WHEN NOT TO USE' sections, providing concrete scenarios (after search returns document IDs, for reading sections, needing quotes) and naming alternative tools (search_documents_direct, get_document_by_id). This gives the agent clear guidance on tool selection.

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