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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals what is returned (full content: title, HTML body, metadata), which adds context beyond the schema. However, it doesn't mention any potential caveats like authentication requirements or error behavior, though 'Get' implies a read-only operation.

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?

A single, focused sentence that front-loads the action ('Get') and resource ('document'), then enumerates contents. No filler or redundant information; every word 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?

The tool is a simple one-parameter getter with a fully-described schema. The description covers the purpose, input semantics (by ID), and the complete return content. There is no output schema to explain, and the description is sufficient for a tool of this 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?

Schema coverage is 100%: the only parameter 'id' is described as 'Document ID'. The description's phrase 'by ID' confirms this but adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 'Get a document (doc, word, note, page) by ID' with a specific verb and resource type, and lists the contained content (title, HTML body, metadata). This distinguishes it from sibling getters like get_sheet and get_slide_presentation, which target different resource types.

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?

It is clear when to use this tool: to retrieve a single document's full content by ID. It implies a contrast with list_documents (for listing) and other getters for different resource types, though it doesn't explicitly state exclusions or alternatives. The mention of 'doc, word, note, page' provides context on applicability.

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