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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden well: it discloses owner-scoping (404 if not yours), cost behavior (token-light, NON-BILLABLE), and that structure is always included. It doesn't state permissions/rate limits explicitly or whether the read is side-effect free, leaving slight gaps.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in the opening sentence, followed by scoped detail on structure and include_html. Every sentence carries information, though the structure-component enumeration is somewhat dense; nothing is wasted.

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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description still fully specifies the return shape (headings/section_count/block_count/media, prior-chats, and html/page_setup/version_id when include_html=true). An agent has everything needed to call it 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 only 33% — document_id and authorization are undocumented in both schema and description. The description clarifies include_html's purpose and default and explains the return is metadata+structure unless include_html=true, partially compensating, but the required document_id gets no elaboration.

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?

States a specific resource (one saved document) and enumerates the exact payload: metadata, STRUCTURE outline, and chat sessions that have it open. It differentiates itself from siblings like list_documents and export_document by clearly being the by-id detail/verify call.

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?

Gives explicit when-to-use guidance ('cheap verify step after any edit', 'did my edit land?') and an explicit when-not/alternative ('never export a whole document just to check its structure'). It also scopes include_html with a clear condition: use only when you need the body.

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