Get document type

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

Annotations already declare the operation read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds 'with all fields,' indicating the response includes the complete object, but does not disclose behavior for missing/invalid IDs or other edge cases. This is acceptable given the strong annotation coverage.

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 compact sentence that starts with the core action and resource, then adds the scope and return expectation. Every word earns its place, with no filler or repetition.

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-ID read operation, the description covers what the tool does, what it returns ('all fields'), and which input identifies the target. Annotations cover safety and idempotency, and no output schema is present, so the description's return note is sufficient.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It mentions 'by ID' but does not explain the id parameter's meaning beyond what the schema already states. Since there is only one obviously named parameter, the gap is minor, but the description still adds little semantic value.

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 action ('Fetch'), the resource ('a single document type'), and the scope ('by ID, with all fields'). This distinguishes it from list_document_types and other singular getters like get_tag or get_storage_path.

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 implies usage: use this when you have a specific document type ID and need its full record. It does not explicitly contrast with list_document_types or mention when not to use it, but the singular 'by ID' provides adequate implied guidance.

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