Get document

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

Annotations already indicate a safe, read-only, idempotent operation. The description adds value by specifying the exact metadata payload and the conditional behavior that OCR content is excluded unless include_content is set, which is meaningful context beyond the annotations.

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?

Two tight sentences with no filler. The core purpose and return fields are front-loaded, and the critical content-exclusion caveat is stated immediately after, making the description economical and easy to scan.

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 single-document fetch with no output schema, the description names the expected output fields and the only important conditional behavior. More detail about the shape of versions or notes would be useful but is not essential for correctly invoking the tool.

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?

Only 50% of the parameters are described in the schema (id lacks a description), but the description compensates by making 'by ID' explicit and by explaining that include_content controls whether OCR text is returned. The behavior of both parameters is inferable even with the incomplete schema coverage.

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 starts with a specific verb and resource: 'Fetch one document's metadata by ID' and enumerates the returned fields (title, correspondent, type, tags, dates, custom fields, notes, versions). This clearly identifies the tool's scope and distinguishes it from content-focused siblings like get_document_content.

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 gives clear context: use this to retrieve metadata for one document, with OCR text only when explicitly requested. It doesn't fully articulate when not to use it or name alternatives directly, but the exclusion of OCR content and the pointer in the include_content parameter make the primary use case clear.

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