List who a doc is shared with

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It accurately states the action (listing permissions) and the scope (people, groups, domain, anyone-with-link), but does not disclose additional behavioral traits such as whether inherited permissions are included, whether the caller needs special access, or the output format. This is adequate but lacks depth.

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 sentence, front-loaded with the core action, and provides essential details in a parenthetical. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or irrelevant information.

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 tool with no output schema, the description explains what permissions are listed and distinguishes between common types. It does not mention edge cases like inherited permissions or pagination, but the simplicity of the operation and the clear listing scope make this largely complete.

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 covers one of two parameters (account) with a description, leaving documentId undocumented. The tool description does not add parameter details, but the purpose statement clearly implies documentId refers to the target Google Doc. This adds marginal value beyond the schema, neither compensating for the gap nor leaving the agent completely without guidance.

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 clearly identifies the resource ('permissions on a Google Doc') with explicit examples of permission types (people, groups, domain, anyone-with-link) and roles. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like share_doc and unshare_doc, which modify permissions.

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 clearly implies when to use this tool: whenever you need to see who has access to a document and with what roles. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the context is clear, and the sibling tools for sharing/unsharing make the read-only use case obvious.

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