read_document

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It mentions output formats but lacks details on authentication needs, rate limits, error handling, or side effects. Overly brief for a read operation.

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 concise (two sentences) but at the expense of completeness for a tool with 11 parameters. It could be more structured without adding much length.

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 high parameter count, low schema coverage, no annotations, no output schema, and many siblings, the description lacks necessary context about parameters, return format details, and error scenarios.

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 description coverage is only 27%; the description adds no parameter-specific information beyond the schema. It hints at tabs, revisions, and comments but does not explain their usage or constraints.

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 clearly states the tool reads a Google Doc as Markdown or a Sheet as a table, with specific verb and resource. It distinguishes between two document types, adding clarity.

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 mentions optional features (tabs, revisions, comments) but does not provide guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings like 'document_info' or 'list_files'. No explicit context for alternatives.

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