listGoogleDocs

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosure. It adds non-obvious details: it retrieves from the user's Drive and orders by last modified date. This provides meaningful context beyond the tool name, though it doesn't mention pagination or that it is read-only, which is implied by 'Retrieves'.

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 a single, concise sentence that front-loads the verb and resource. Every word adds value, with no redundancy or filler.

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 tool with no parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is sufficiently complete. It specifies the input source ('user's Drive') and behavior (ordering), covering the key context an agent would need. It could potentially note the scope of 'Google Docs' but that is reasonably inferred from the tool name.

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?

The input schema is empty (no parameters), so the description doesn't need to explain parameters. Schema description coverage is vacuously 100%, and the baseline for zero parameters is 4. The description adds no parameter info because there are none.

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 uses a specific verb ('Retrieves'), resource ('Google Docs'), and scope ('from the user's Drive'), along with an ordering detail ('ordered by last modified date'). It clearly distinguishes itself from siblings like readGoogleDoc and listOfficeDocs.

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 tool's purpose is clear enough to imply when to use it: whenever a list of Google Docs is needed. No explicit exclusions or alternatives are mentioned, but for a simple list tool, this is acceptable and the context is unambiguous.

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