Get Google Doc

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds behavioral context beyond that: it details what the returned body.content contains (index ranges for every paragraph/text run) and how to leverage that data. This is useful, non-redundant information that helps the agent use the tool correctly.

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 two sentences long, front-loads the core action, and each sentence earns its place. The first sentence states the purpose, and the second explains a practical use of the output. There is no filler, redundancy, or unnecessary detail.

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 the output schema exists, the description doesn't need to enumerate return values. It adds contextual value by connecting this tool's output to docs_batch_update and docs_replace_all_text, which are sibling tools, and hints at the multi-tab caveat indirectly via includeTabsContent. It lacks explicit info about auth requirements, but openWorldHint suggests external auth is handled elsewhere. Overall, it is complete enough for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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 input schema already provides descriptions for fields, documentId, and includeTabsContent, covering 75% of parameters. The description mentions the body.content structure but does not add new parameter-level semantics. It doesn't explain user_google_email, but the schema omits a description there too. Since the schema does most of the work, this falls at the baseline of 3.

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 states a specific verb ('Read'), a clear resource ('Google Doc's content and structure'), and identifies the underlying API ('documents.get'). This sets it apart from sibling tools like docs_batch_update or get_file_metadata, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 explains why this tool is valuable—to obtain startIndex/endIndex pairs needed for docs_batch_update requests and to verify edits. While it doesn't explicitly say 'use this instead of X', it clearly conveys the primary use case and the context in which this tool is necessary, which is more than minimal guidance.

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