docs_getSuggestions

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already signals that this is a safe read operation, but the description adds no behavioral details beyond that. It does not disclose what form the suggestions take, whether resolved or pending suggestions are included, or any access requirements, effectively restating the tool name.

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 sentence with the verb front-loaded. Every word contributes to the meaning, and there is no redundant or extraneous content, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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?

This is a simple tool with one well-documented parameter and a read-only annotation, so the description is minimally sufficient. However, it leaves ambiguity about what 'suggested edits' encompasses and does not prepare the agent for the return structure, which would be helpful given the lack of an output schema.

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 documents the sole parameter documentId as 'Document ID or URL' (100% coverage), so the description does not need to add parameter meaning. However, the description also adds no extra semantic value, such as accepting a URL format or clarifying how the ID is used, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 'Retrieves' and clearly identifies the resource as 'suggested edits from a Google Doc.' This distinguishes it from sibling tools like docs_getText, which retrieves plain text, and drive_getComments, which retrieves comments.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of exclusions, prerequisites, or a preferred alternative for specific use cases, leaving the agent without context for tool selection.

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