drive_get_doc_text

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

Annotations already carry readOnly/idempotent/destructive=false, yet the description adds genuinely new behavioral facts: output is flattened plain text, access is scoped to documents the caller can already open, and the returned content is untrusted data that must not be followed as instructions (a meaningful prompt-injection warning). It stops short of noting size limits, truncation, or how tables/images are handled, and 'Read-only' merely restates the annotation.

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?

Front-loaded with the action and return value in the first clause, then input forms, then the safety caveat. Four short sentences with no filler; every sentence carries information.

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 single-param, read-only tool with full annotation coverage and no output schema, saying it returns plain text is sufficient on the return side. Missing only operational detail such as size limits or partial-read behavior were a large doc encountered.

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?

One parameter at 100% schema coverage, so the schema already documents doc_url_or_id; the description's 'docs.google.com URL or a bare document ID' matches the schema text without adding format examples or edge cases. Baseline 3 for fully-covered params is correct here.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Reads a Google Doc ... returns its plain text') with the output form named, and gives a concrete example ('a Gemini meeting-notes document'). No sibling in this server touches Docs content, so an agent can tell immediately this is the document-text tool rather than any gmail_* or contacts_* tool.

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?

Implies usage via the example document type and the precondition 'you have access to', but never states when to reach for it versus another path (e.g. gmail_get_meeting_notes for the Gmail-side notes copy) nor when not to use it. Guidance is inferred rather than explicit.

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