docs_open

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose two real traits: the operation is non-destructive ('Doesn't change the document') and it has a visible UI side effect (foreground Chrome tab). It says nothing about permission requirements, account constraints, or what happens if the browser is unavailable.

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 short sentences, zero filler, with the core action and its safety property front-loaded. Nothing needs trimming.

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 2-parameter, 1-required tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers the action, the delivery mechanism, and non-mutation adequately. Remaining gaps are minor (browser/auth preconditions).

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 both 'doc' and 'account' are fully documented in the schema itself, making 3 the baseline. The description adds no additional parameter meaning such as URL-vs-id acceptance or the account-index convention.

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?

Names a specific verb (Open) and resource (Google Doc) plus the delivery channel (foreground Chrome tab), which cleanly separates it from siblings like docs_read or docs_list. It stops short of naming an alternative explicitly, so it is clear but not sibling-routing.

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?

'For the user to look at' implies the use case (human viewing) versus programmatic retrieval via docs_read, but the description never states when to prefer this over docs_read/docs_export or what conditions must hold. Usage is inferable rather than explicit.

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