Fetch Document

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It states 'Behavior: read-only', describes the exact return fields including the 500-character truncation, and documents the error condition 'Document not found' for unknown or expired IDs. This is unusually transparent for a tool description.

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 concise, well-organized with labeled sections, and front-loads the core purpose. Every sentence adds useful content, and there is no redundant repetition of schema or annotation details.

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?

Despite having no output schema, the description enumerates the return fields and truncation behavior, making the tool's output predictable. It also covers errors, read-only behavior, and usage context, making the description complete for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters clearly. The description adds context around the point_id's role in previewing a stored response, but does not need to add more because the parameter semantics are fully captured in the schema.

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 states a specific action ('Preview one stored tool response') and identifies the resource by 'Qdrant point ID', clearly distinguishing this from sibling search and execute tools. It also explicitly indicates what it is not for, such as full untruncated content, which further sharpens purpose.

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 'Use when' section directly instructs to use this tool when inspecting a hit from semantic_search, and explicitly points to alternatives for finding point IDs and retrieving full content. This is exemplary routing guidance that leaves no ambiguity about when to use this tool versus siblings.

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