docs_getText

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already declares this as a read-only operation, so the description's 'Retrieves' aligns without contradiction. The description does not disclose additional behavioral traits such as tab handling or formatting details; however, the schema covers tab handling, so this is acceptable but not above baseline.

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, clear sentence with no redundant words or unnecessary details. It is front-loaded with the core purpose.

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 read-only retrieval tool with well-documented parameters, the description sufficiently indicates the return value (text content). The schema and annotations cover the remaining context, making this description complete.

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 provides 100% coverage of both parameters (documentId and tabId) with clear descriptions. The tool description adds no parameter-specific meaning, which is acceptable given the schema coverage.

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' with a clear resource 'text content of a Google Doc'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like docs_writeText and sheets_getText, making its purpose unambiguous.

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 does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It implies that it is the tool for reading text from Google Docs, but it does not mention exclusions or compare to docs_getSuggestions or sheets_getText.

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