get_document

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 states it's a read operation ('Get'), which implies non-destructive behavior, but doesn't disclose authentication needs, rate limits, error handling, or what happens if the document doesn't exist. For a retrieval tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps, though it's not misleading.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded: the first sentence states the core purpose, followed by a structured 'Args:' section. Each sentence earns its place by clarifying parameters, though it could be slightly more concise by integrating the args into the main text. No wasted words, but minor structural improvements are possible.

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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity (3 params, 2 required), no annotations, and the presence of an output schema (which handles return values), the description is reasonably complete. It covers the purpose and parameters adequately. However, it lacks behavioral context (e.g., permissions, errors), which would be beneficial since annotations are absent, keeping it from a 5.

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 schema provides no param details. The description adds basic semantics: 'doctype: ERPNext DocType name,' 'name: Document name/ID,' and 'fields: Optional list of fields to return.' This clarifies what each param represents, but doesn't explain format constraints (e.g., valid DocType values) or usage nuances. It compensates partially but not fully for the low 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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Get a single document by DocType and name.' It specifies the verb ('Get') and resource ('a single document'), and distinguishes it from siblings like 'list_documents' (which returns multiple) and 'create_document' (which creates rather than retrieves). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'get_list_with_summary' or 'run_report', which might also retrieve documents, so it's not a perfect 5.

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 by stating it retrieves 'a single document,' suggesting it's for fetching specific records rather than lists or summaries. However, it doesn't explicitly say when to use this vs. alternatives like 'list_documents' (for multiple) or 'get_list_with_summary' (for aggregated data), nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions. The guidance is present but not comprehensive.

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