sd_get_raw_document_by_id

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 discloses the output type (RawDocument with id and XML content), the parameter semantics, and mentions progress reporting via ctx. It doesn't discuss error cases or authorization requirements, but for a simple retrieval operation the disclosure is solid.

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 there is no fluff or repetition of schema fields.

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 2-parameter read tool, the description is complete: it covers purpose, usage guidance, parameter details, and return type. The presence of an output schema means return values don't need extensive explanation, but the description still provides them.

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 zero description coverage, but the description fully compensates by explaining each parameter: document_id is the TEI xml:id, collection is an optional filter relative to data_path, and ctx is for progress reporting. This adds meaning well beyond the bare 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 opens with 'Retrieve raw XML document by its xml:id', which is a specific verb+resource+identifier. It clearly distinguishes this low-level raw retrieval tool from siblings like sd_get_document_by_id and sd_get_raw_document_by_path by emphasizing the TEI xml:id and raw XML nature.

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 and WHEN NOT TO USE sections list concrete scenarios (after search/browse, custom processing, building block) and explicitly direct users to sibling tools (browse/search for discovery, get_raw_document_by_path for file paths). This provides clear alternatives and exclusions.

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