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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint: false and destructiveHint: false, so the description's mention of 'create' is consistent. The description adds the connector requirement and return info (id + URL), which are useful. However, it does not disclose what happens if the connection is missing, whether the tool always creates a new doc (non-idempotent, which annotation confirms), or any side effects beyond creation. For a mutation tool, this is adequate but not rich behavioral context.

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 two sentences with no padding. The first sentence states the purpose and gives examples; the second covers the return value and prerequisite. Everything is front-loaded and every word earns its place. It is concise without sacrificing essential information.

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 2-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the key aspects: what it creates, the return value, and a prerequisite. It does not explicitly mention error handling or formatting, but given the tool's simplicity and the presence of sibling tools that handle modifications (append_to_doc, update_doc), this is fairly complete. The examples and connector note provide useful context beyond the bare minimum.

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% with descriptions for both 'title' and 'text'. The description adds examples of usage and clarifies 'optional body text', but it also states 'title + optional body text', implying title is required, while the schema marks both parameters as optional (required: 0). This creates a slight inconsistency. The examples add some semantic value, but the mismatch in requiredness prevents a higher score.

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 states the verb 'Create', the resource 'a new Google Doc', and specific attributes (title + optional body text). It provides concrete examples (export ad copy, creative brief, report) that help distinguish it from related tools like append_to_doc, update_doc, and create_sheet. The scope is unambiguous: 'in the user’s Drive'.

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 context for when to use it via examples ('e.g. export ad copy...') and notes the prerequisite of having Google Drive connected. It does not explicitly state when NOT to use it (e.g., when appending to an existing doc) or name alternative tools, but the purpose is clear enough that an agent would correctly infer it is for creating new docs. The connector instruction adds practical usage guidance.

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