read_doc

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only states that the tool reads raw text, but does not disclose authentication requirements, rate limits, error behavior, or what happens if the document is inaccessible. This is minimal behavioral context.

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, concise sentence. It wastes no words, though it could benefit from a bit more context without becoming verbose. Still, it is well-structured and front-loaded.

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?

Given the tool has only one parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, the description provides enough to understand the basic action. However, it lacks information about return format, error handling, and usage constraints, which are moderately important given the number of sibling tools.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage (parameter 'document_id' is described as 'Document ID or token'). The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so baseline 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 explicitly states 'Read the raw text content of a Feishu document', using a specific verb ('read') and resource ('raw text content') that clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like read_doc_markdown or get_doc_blocks.

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 includes '[Official API]' hinting at authority but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as read_doc_markdown or get_doc_blocks. Usage context is only implied by the 'raw text' nature, which may confuse agents when siblings exist.

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