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

Annotations already signal readOnly=false, destructiveHint=true, and openWorldHint=true, so the description doesn't need to repeat those. It adds valuable behavioral context about default formatting ('beautifully formatted docs') and the write-tier approval flow, which annotations cannot convey.

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 and stays relevant throughout. The write-tier approval paragraph is slightly verbose, but it carries essential operational information that would otherwise be missing.

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 five parameters, no output schema, and annotations covering the safety profile, the description covers purpose, use cases, formatting behavior, and approval semantics. A minor gap is that it doesn't explain what kind of result the caller should expect, but that's not critical for invoking 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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaning beyond the schema by mapping use cases ('JDs, deliverables') to the folder enum and explaining the default behavior of format_for_humans. It doesn't add detail for title or companyId, but those are self-explanatory.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Create a new Google Doc in the user's FreedomOS Drive folder.' It also enumerates concrete use cases ('JDs, deliverables, and shared documents'), which clearly separates it from sibling tools like read_google_doc and update_google_doc.

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 explicitly states when to use the tool ('Use for JDs, deliverables, and shared documents') and even gives workflow-level guidance about acting on the first clear ask. It does not name an alternative tool to use instead, so it falls short of the full when-not guidance.

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