developer-tools

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is well covered. The description adds no further behavioral details such as rate limits, response format, or error handling, but it does align with the read-only nature. Given the annotations, a 3 is appropriate.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that clearly states the action and resource, and it includes a useful pointer to the sibling tool. No wasted words or redundant restatements.

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 simple one-parameter, read-only fetch tool with no output schema, the description is adequately complete. It identifies the resource, the input, and the relationship to the sibling search tool. The only minor gap is the lack of explicit mention of the return format, but this is not critical given the tool's simplicity.

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 input schema has 100% coverage, including a clear description for the required url parameter. The tool description does not add any additional information about the parameter beyond what the schema already provides, which meets the baseline.

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 the specific verb 'fetches' and identifies the resource as 'Google Workspace documentation page', making the action unambiguous. It also explicitly references the sibling tool `search_workspace_docs`, distinguishing this tool as the follow-up action to retrieve content from a found page.

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 implies a clear workflow by noting the page is 'such as those returned by the `search_workspace_docs` tool', which tells the agent when to use this tool (after search). However, it does not explicitly state exclusions or alternative scenarios, so it falls short of a 5.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds context by noting it searches the 'latest official' documentation and includes various content types, but does not disclose any additional behavioral traits like result limits or freshness guarantees.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that conveys the purpose and scope without any fluff. Every word contributes to understanding what the tool does.

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 simple one-parameter schema, rich annotations, and presence of an output schema, the description is mostly complete. It covers the scope and purpose adequately, but lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus the sibling fetch tool, which leaves a small gap in contextual completeness.

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 fully describes the only parameter (query) with a description, min/max length, and required flag. The description does not add any additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, so baseline of 3 applies.

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 clearly identifies the tool as a search over Google Workspace documentation, listing content types like API references and tutorials. It does not explicitly name the sibling tool for differentiation, but the verb 'searches' distinguishes it from 'fetch_workspace_docs' implicitly.

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?

Usage is implied by the name and description: use this tool to search documentation, presumably when you need to find relevant docs. There is no explicit comparison to sibling fetch_workspace_docs, but the contrast between search and fetch provides a hint. No clear when-not-to-use guidance is given.

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