List suggestions in a doc

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 discloses the output structure (doc title and per-suggestion previews), the ordering (document order), and a key API limitation (no author or timestamp). This is more transparent than typical tool descriptions, though it does not mention edge cases like missing suggestions or behavior across multiple tabs.

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 three sentences with no filler. The first sentence states the core function, the second explains the output and how to use it, and the third adds a critical limitation. Every word earns its place, making it appropriately sized and front-loaded.

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 a simple schema and no output schema, the description is quite complete. It covers what the tool does, what it returns (title and preview), and how to use the return values. It also mentions a feature limitation. The only missing context is what happens when no suggestions exist, but that is not essential for a list operation of this simplicity.

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% (documentId, tab, account all have descriptions). The tool description adds no param-specific meaning beyond the schema, but the baseline is 3 due to high schema coverage. The mention of 'pass these verbatim' refers to output values, not input parameters, so it does not 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: 'List pending suggestions (tracked changes) in a Google Doc as before→after diffs, in document order.' It uses a specific verb ('list'), a specific resource ('suggestions in a Google Doc'), and adds details about format and ordering. This distinguishes it clearly from sibling tools like apply_suggestions (which applies them) and list_comments (which lists comments).

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 workflow guidance: 'pass these verbatim as documentTitle/expectedChange to apply_suggestion.' This tells the agent how to use the output of this tool in conjunction with apply_suggestion, implying this is the precursor to applying changes. It does not explicitly enumerate alternative tools or when not to use this tool, hence a 4 instead of 5.

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