docs get document

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds useful behavior the annotations do not: the text is truncated at a max_chars cap, the ceiling is 100000, and a truncated flag reports whether the cap applied.

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?

Two tight sentences. The core action is front-loaded, and the truncation caveat follows without wasted words.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values do not need to be explained, and the truncation semantics cover the main ambiguity. Only document_id's expected format is left implicit, which is minor for an obvious identifier.

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 0%, so the description must carry the load. It explains the max_chars cap and ceiling, though the 20000 default is already in the schema. It says nothing about document_id, which is the only required parameter.

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 verb and resource: read a Google Doc as plain text, plus a structure summary. That is more concrete than the name alone. It does not, however, say how it differs from nearby tools such as drive_read_file_text or drive_get_file, which also read file content.

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 no guidance on when to choose this tool over drive_read_file_text or drive_get_file. It states no prerequisites or exclusions, so the agent must use the name and sibling list to infer usage.

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