get_document

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the result is 'authoritative metadata' and limited to an 'indexed document edition,' but it does not mention whether missing documents cause errors, how revisions are resolved, or any other side effects or constraints.

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 short sentences with no filler. The core action and resource are front-loaded, and the revision guidance is placed exactly where it belongs.

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 straightforward single-document metadata retrieval tool, the description is close to adequate, and an output schema exists to document return values. However, without annotations or schema parameter descriptions, the source parameter remains unexplained and usage guidance relative to sibling tools is thin.

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?

The schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It adds useful semantics for revision ('when more than one edition is indexed') but does not explain the meaning or role of source, which is a nontrivial optional parameter with an enum of CCSDS/ECSS.

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 ('Get'), a specific resource ('authoritative metadata for one indexed document edition'), and clarifies it targets a single document rather than a search or passage. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like search_standards and get_passage.

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 concrete guidance: specify revision when more than one edition is indexed. It implies this tool is for retrieving metadata for a known document rather than searching, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over search_standards or get_passage.

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