List comments on a doc

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

The description discloses useful behavioral details: it lists the included fields and explicitly notes that author email is unavailable via the Drive API. This limitation is helpful context beyond a simple 'list comments' statement, though it does not cover pagination or ordering.

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?

Two concise sentences, front-loaded with the core function and field list, followed by a relevant limitation. No wasted words.

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 read-only list tool with no output schema, the description covers the return contents and a key constraint. It lacks explicit pagination or resolved-comment filtering details, but these are not essential for the agent's basic invocation.

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 already fully documents both parameters (account with default behavior, documentId). The description adds no further parameter semantics, so it meets the baseline for schema-covered 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 clearly states a specific action ('List comments') and resource ('a Google Doc'), enumerating the returned fields. It distinguishes itself from sibling comment-related tools like add_comment and resolve_comment by focusing on listing.

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 usage for retrieving comments but provides no explicit guidance on when to choose this over siblings like list_suggestions or read_doc. There are no exclusions or alternative recommendations, so it relies on the agent's interpretation.

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