get_document

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

Annotations already mark this as read-only, and the description adds meaningful behavioral context: it returns all entries with quantities, prices, and totals, names the document kind in the response `type` field, and explains the open/posted/paid status vocabulary. This goes well beyond the annotations and helps the agent interpret results correctly.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose, then moves to return behavior and status semantics, then parameter details. Each sentence earns its place, and the Args block is structured, direct, and free of fluff.

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 read-only annotation and the presence of an output schema, the description covers everything needed to call the tool correctly: document scope, return contents, status meaning, ID format, and optional parameter roles. Error/not-found behavior is not described, but this is a minor omission relative to the otherwise complete guidance.

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 description carries the full burden, and it delivers: id is explicitly the human-readable ID, not the internal GUID; document_type is explained as a disambiguator for per-type counters; party_type is scoped to credit notes. This is more informative than the raw 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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Get full details for a customer invoice, vendor bill, employee voucher, or credit note, including line items.' It also distinguishes itself from related tools by pointing to list_documents and get_outstanding_documents for definitions and unpaid lists.

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 clear context and points to alternatives: 'full definitions live on list_documents' and 'the unpaid list is get_outstanding_documents.' It does not explicitly say 'use get_document when you need a single document's line items' or 'do not use it for lists,' but the purpose and pointers make the intended usage reasonably clear.

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