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 transparency burden. It discloses that it lists only pending suggestions, returns diffs in document order, and notes the API exposes no author or timestamp — useful limitations. A minor gap is not explicitly stating it is read-only, but 'list' implies that.

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 two sentences (plus a short note) and front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence. Every sentence earns its place, providing output format, integration guidance, and an API limitation without redundancy.

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?

The tool has 5 parameters and no output schema, so the description must define the output contract. It adequately explains the return structure (title + per-suggestion preview) and the no-author/timestamp limitation. It could also mention what happens when no suggestions exist, but 'pending' clarifies the scope.

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 the baseline is 3. The description adds no extra meaning about parameters (documentId, tab, page, account, segment); it only mentions output fields title and preview, which relate to the response, not parameters. The params are well-documented in the schema.

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 lists pending suggestions (tracked changes) in a Google Doc as before→after diffs in document order. This specific verb+resource+scope distinguishes it from sibling tools like apply_suggestions (which applies them) and list_comments (which handles 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 clear context by explaining the output includes a preview to pass to apply_suggestions, implying usage as a precursor to applying changes. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use, but the integration hint gives practical guidance.

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