List Document Comments

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint false, so the read-only nature is covered elsewhere. The description adds the optional max_comments limiting behavior, but does not mention pagination, authentication requirements, or completeness caveats. This is adequate but not especially rich.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. The core action and resource are stated first, and the optional parameter is cleanly parenthesized, making it highly scannable.

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 simple read-only listing tool with an output schema, the description covers the core action, target resource, and optional limit. A note about the required user_google_email or how it connects to Google authentication would make it fully complete, but that is inferable from the parameter name and sibling tools like start_google_auth.

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?

The schema has 0% description coverage, so the description needs to compensate. It explains max_comments as a result limiter and implies document_id identifies a Google Document, but it does not explain the required user_google_email parameter or its role, leaving a meaningful gap for one of the two required parameters.

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 ('List') and resource ('comments from a Google Document'), making it clear what the tool does. It also distinguishes itself from comment-related management tools and from spreadsheet/presentation comment listing tools via the explicit 'Google Document' scoping.

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 provides clear context: use this tool to retrieve comments from a Google Document, not from spreadsheets or presentations, and not to manage comments. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives like manage_document_comment or state when not to use this tool, so it falls just short of full guidance.

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