Inspect Doc Structure

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, indicating safe, non-destructive behavior. The description adds significant context: it reveals that the tool returns document structure details, explains its critical role in safe insertion, and describes output fields like total_length. It also warns against inventing IDs and clarifies that the tool is for inspection only. No contradiction with annotations.

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 well-structured with clear sections (USE THIS FOR, CRITICAL FOR TABLE OPERATIONS, WHAT THE OUTPUT SHOWS, workflows). It is appropriately sized for the tool's complexity, with each section adding unique value. The essential purpose is front-loaded, and the workflow steps are concise yet complete.

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 tool's complexity (document structure inspection for safe insertion), the description is comprehensive. It covers multiple workflows (table insertion, formatting, header/footer editing), explains output details, and addresses edge cases like tabs. Since the tool has an output schema, the description's explanation of return fields (total_elements, tables, headers/footers, etc.) is sufficient for an agent to use the output effectively.

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 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds minimal new meaning beyond the schema: it mentions using 'detail=true' in the formatting workflow and implies that tab_id is optional. However, it does not elaborate on user_google_email or document_id beyond the schema definitions. The output-focused descriptions (like total_length) do not directly enhance parameter semantics.

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's purpose: 'finding safe insertion points and understanding document structure'. It specifies the verb 'inspect' and resource 'doc structure'. It distinguishes from siblings by emphasizing its role as 'Essential tool for finding safe insertion points' and explicitly positioning it as a prerequisite for table operations, differentiating it from tools like debug_table_structure or get_doc_content.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool: 'USE THIS FOR' lists five specific scenarios. It also provides alternatives: 'For ordinary header/footer text, use update_doc_headers_footers' and 'If you need low-level segment editing, call this tool first'. The table insertion workflow instructs to ALWAYS call before creating tables, and the formatting workflow specifies when to call with detailed=true.

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