read_doc

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It states the operation is a 'Read', but does not disclose error handling, authorization requirements, or response format. The behavior is simple, but the description lacks detail beyond the basic action.

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 that conveys the essential purpose. The prefix '[Official API]' is unnecessary boilerplate but does not significantly impair conciseness.

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 tool with a single parameter and no output schema, the description is minimal but acceptable. It does not explain what 'raw text' entails (e.g., whether it includes formatting, attachments, or limits), leaving some gaps for a completely unknown tool.

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% and the description adds no additional meaning to the parameter beyond what the schema already documents ('Document ID or token'). Thus, the baseline 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 clearly states a specific action ('Read') and a specific resource ('raw text content of a Feishu document'), distinguishing it from siblings like read_doc_markdown and get_doc_blocks by emphasizing 'raw text'.

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 clear context that this tool is for raw text content, which implies when to use it relative to markdown or block-based siblings. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state exclusions.

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