get_document_info

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, the description explicitly says 'Read-only' and discloses a behavioral conditional: documents open in Word are read live, with same key names, live adds Word's 'words' counter and track_revisions, and omits the part list. This is exactly the kind of non-obvious behavior an agent needs.

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, front-loaded with the main purpose and a compact itemized list of returned counts. The second sentence earns its place by clarifying the live behavior rather than padding.

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?

The output schema covers return values, so the description does not need to. It covers the two key behaviors (overview contents and live mode) and the read-only guarantee; however, it leaves the 'auto' default's exact decision rule unstated, so an agent may need to infer when live is applied.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning. It explains the live parameter's effect (adds 'words', track_revisions, omits part list) but does not specify accepted values beyond the schema's default, and file_path is left to inference. file_path is self-evident from the schema and name, so the partial compensation is enough.

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?

Opens with the verb 'Read' and a specific resource ('one-call document overview'), then enumerates exact contents: paragraph/table/footnote/comment/revision counts, sections, and package parts. This clearly separates it from siblings like get_text, get_outline, or list_elements.

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 phrase 'one-call document overview' implicitly tells an agent this is the summary tool, and the live-behavior note adds context, but it never states when to choose this over get_text/get_outline/list_elements or when not to use it. No explicit alternatives or exclusions are provided.

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