Get Doc Content

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

Annotations already declare the tool read-only and non-destructive, and the description adds useful behavioral detail by explaining the two retrieval paths: Docs API for native Google Docs and Drive API download with text extraction for Office files. This clarifies what the agent should expect for .docx and similar files.

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 compact, front-loaded with the core purpose, and uses a short bulleted breakdown for the two supported file types. Every sentence contributes useful information with no filler.

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?

Combined with full parameter descriptions, an output schema, and read-only annotations, the description gives an agent enough to invoke the tool correctly. It does not clarify sibling overlap or limitations beyond 'extracts text', but those are secondary for a read-only retrieval 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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds important meaning by clarifying that document_id can identify either a native Google Doc or a Drive file such as .docx, which goes beyond the schema's parameter description.

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 uses a specific verb ('Retrieves') and a clear resource ('content of a Google Doc or a Drive file'), so the tool's purpose is immediately understandable. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from overlapping siblings like get_drive_file_content or get_doc_as_markdown, which keeps it from a 5.

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 when to use the tool by listing supported file types, but it gives no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and names no alternatives. An agent is left to infer that this is the right tool for Google Docs and Drive office files.

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