get_document

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It discloses a useful trait: 'positions expanded'. However, it does not mention whether the operation is read-only (though 'get' implies it), error behavior, permissions, or response structure details beyond expanded positions. The description adds some value but lacks depth.

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 a single sentence that is front-loaded with 'Generic' and packs the core purpose, scope, and a key behavioral detail into a compact form. There is no wasted text; every word contributes to understanding.

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 tool with no output schema, the description adequately covers the core functionality and notes the expanded positions return detail. It could be more explicit about the return structure or mention that dedicated getters exist for common entities, but the description is sufficiently complete for its complexity.

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 already documents both parameters clearly with 100% coverage: id is 'Document UUID' and entity_type includes examples. The description merely echoes 'by UUID' and 'any entity type' without adding new semantic meaning. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema handles parameter documentation.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'get a single document of any MoySklad entity type by UUID'. The 'Generic' prefix and 'any entity type' clearly distinguish it from the plural get_documents and dedicated getters like get_customer_order. This is a precise, unambiguous purpose.

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 word 'Generic' implies it can be used for any entity type, providing some context for when to use it. However, it does not explicitly say when to prefer this over dedicated getters or when not to use it. No alternatives or exclusions are mentioned, so guidance is implied rather than direct.

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