Get Document Info

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

Annotations already include readOnlyHint=true, and the description reinforces 'Read-only'. It adds valuable context about the 'live' parameter, explaining behavior for documents open in Word (adds 'words' from ComputeStatistics, omits part list). This goes beyond annotations and is consistent, so no contradiction.

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?

Two sentences with no filler, front-loading the core purpose and then detailing the live behavior. The second sentence is dense but necessary for nuance. Well-structured and efficient.

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 output schema exists, return values are documented separately. The description covers the read-only nature, the live behavior, and what information is returned. For a read-only overview tool, this is complete enough; the only minor gap is explicit guidance on when to choose this over siblings.

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 covers 50% of parameters (only 'live' has a description). The description elaborates on the 'live' behavior, which directly explains the enum values, but does not add anything about 'file_path' (though that is self-explanatory). It partially compensates for the coverage gap but could be more explicit about parameter meanings.

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 verb ('Read') and resource ('document overview'), enumerating the exact content (counts, sections, package parts) and distinguishing itself from siblings by positioning as a one-call overview. It is unambiguous and differentiates from other get_ tools like get_document_view or get_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 implies use for a high-level overview but does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives or when not to use it. It mentions 'one-call' which hints at efficiency, but there is no explicit comparison to siblings like get_document_view or get_outline, leaving selection partly to inference.

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