get_doc

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. 'Retrieve' implies a non-destructive read, and 'full content' clarifies the expected scope, but it does not disclose output format, error behavior, or unknown-ID handling.

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 sentences with no filler: the first states the action and resource, the second gives the workflow context. Every sentence earns its place.

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 single-parameter read tool, the description tells the agent what to pass, when to call it, and what to expect ('full content'). The absence of an output schema and any return-format hints is a minor gap, but the core call is well specified.

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 coverage is 100%: doc_id is already documented as 'Chunk ID or partial source file path'. The description restates this same meaning without adding format examples, constraints, or clarification of what 'partial' means in practice.

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 names a specific verb ('Retrieve'), a clear resource ('Cookbook document or chunk'), and the lookup key ('ID or partial source file path'). It also differentiates itself from search_kg by framing this as the follow-up full-content reader.

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 phrase 'Use after search_kg to read the full content' explicitly identifies the workflow context and intended sequencing. However, it does not mention exclusions or alternative tools like find_exemplar, so it stops short of full when-to-use guidance.

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