get_doc_content

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

With no annotations, description provides behavioral details: for native Docs uses Docs API, for Office files downloads via Drive API and extracts text. Also mentions return includes metadata header. Lacks info on permissions or error handling, but adequate for a read tool.

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?

Description is concise, uses a short paragraph and bullet points to explain file type handling and return format. Every sentence adds value; no wasted words.

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 two file types, schema with 2 required params, and presence of output schema, description covers behavior for different file types and return format. Missing error handling or prerequisites, but sufficient for typical use.

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 has 2 params (user_google_email, document_id) with 0% description coverage. Description explains document_id identifies the file, but user_google_email is not described, leaving it ambiguous. Adds partial meaning but not complete.

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?

Description clearly states the tool retrieves content of Google Docs or Drive files (like .docx) using document_id. It distinguishes from siblings like get_drive_file_content and download_google_doc by specifying handling of both native Docs and Office files.

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?

Description implies usage for reading doc content from Docs or Drive, but does not explicitly state when to use vs alternatives like get_drive_file_content or download_google_doc. No guidance on exclusions or when not to use.

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