read_document

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly describes what the tool returns ('structural map — headings with hierarchy, named ranges with boundaries, tables with dimensions, inline objects, and section boundaries') and explains the operational context ('so your edit operations target the right locations'). However, it doesn't mention potential limitations like document size constraints or authentication requirements.

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 well-structured and efficiently written. The first sentence states the core purpose, followed by specific details about the return value, then the operational guidance. Every sentence adds value, with no redundant information. The bold text effectively emphasizes the key usage instruction.

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 single-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description provides excellent context about what the tool does, when to use it, and what it returns. However, without an output schema, the description could benefit from more detail about the exact format of the structural map return value, though it does list the key components that will be included.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate for the lack of parameter documentation. It provides the single parameter 'document_id' with clear semantics ('The Google Docs document ID from the URL'), which fully covers the one required parameter. The description doesn't need to explain parameter format beyond what's already stated.

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 tool's purpose with specific verbs ('see what the document contains', 'returns the document's structural map') and resources ('document', 'headings', 'named ranges', 'tables', 'inline objects', 'section boundaries'). It explicitly distinguishes from the sibling edit_document by explaining this is for viewing structure before editing.

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 provides explicit guidance on when to use this tool: 'Call this before edit_document' and explains why ('Without this, you're editing blind'). It also mentions the alternative edit_document by name and explains the relationship between the tools.

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