get_doc_smart_chips

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully discloses behavioral traits: it walks the document body, finds person and richLink elements, returns type/character range/key properties, requires OAuth scope, is read-only, safe to call repeatedly, and explains limitations (no headers/footers, only rendered chips). No contradictions with annotations (none).

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: it starts with a clear purpose, then details extracted elements, limitations, auth, and a scope note. Each sentence adds value without redundancy. It is appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

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 presence of an output schema (implied), the description covers all necessary context: what is extracted, scope restrictions, auth requirements, and important notes about rendering. It is complete for an agent to decide when and how to use the 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 50% (only document_id has a description). The description does not add meaning for the user_google_email parameter beyond its name, which is fairly self-explanatory. However, the description adds value to the overall tool behavior, not the parameters. Given moderate coverage and clear parameter names, a 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 clearly states the verb 'extract' and the resource 'smart chips' with specific types (person mentions and rich links). It distinguishes from sibling tools like insert_doc_person_chip and insert_doc_file_chip by noting that programmatically inserted chips are not included, and contrasts with inline hyperlinks.

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 explicitly lists use cases (auditing @mentions, validating links, building chip inventory) and explicitly states what it does NOT include, providing alternatives (direct text scan for hyperlinks, user opening doc in UI for programmatic chips). This gives clear guidance on when to use this tool versus other methods.

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