Read a Google Doc

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It discloses the output format (markdown + inline HTML) and explain modes for tracked changes, but omits details like default tab behavior, account handling, or error conditions. The tab parameter is not mentioned in the description, and return size/pagination is not addressed.

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 extremely concise: one sentence plus a compact mode list. It front-loads the core purpose and packs the key mode distinctions into a small space without unnecessary 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?

Given the tool's complexity (4 params, no output schema), the description covers output format and modes well. However, it lacks explicit mention of tab defaults, account selection, or what happens with empty documents, leaving some gaps for a fully comprehensive picture.

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?

Although the schema covers all parameters, the description adds meaningful semantics by explaining what each mode does (e.g., clean as committed text, tracked as <ins>/<del>) and referencing list_tabs for tab selection. This goes beyond the raw schema descriptions.

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 reads a Google Doc and outputs markdown + inline HTML. The verb 'read' and resource 'Google Doc' are specific, and the mode options distinguish this from sibling write tools like edit_doc or update_doc.

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 reading a document with different modes for handling suggestions, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives like list_suggestions or get_style. No exclusions or alternative tool references are provided, so guidance is only implicit.

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