docs_read

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose real behavior: documents are paged via offset/maxChars, and the 'structure' mode returns an outline of headings, list items, tables, cells and placeholders. It stops short of noting auth requirements, rate limits, or failure behavior.

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 dense sentences with the core action and default format front-loaded, then the 'structure' mode explained, then paging. Efficient, though the nested format list makes the first sentence long.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description must convey return shape; it does so for each format including the outline contents. Missing only error/auth/pagination-limit context for a 5-param read tool with no annotations.

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 every parameter (doc, format, offset, account, maxChars) is already documented. The description only restates formats and paging, adding no syntax or edge-case detail beyond the schema — the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Read a Google Doc') and enumerates the exact output modes, so the agent knows precisely what comes back. It does not name or contrast any sibling (e.g. docs_export, docs_status, docs_open), so 5 is not warranted.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: 'structure ... for planning edits' hints at a read-then-edit workflow, and format selection is contextual. There is no explicit when-to-use vs alternatives or when-not guidance against siblings like docs_export or docs_status.

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