Read a Google Doc

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

Annotations already carry readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is known. The description adds meaningful context beyond that: the drive.file scope boundary ('reaches nothing else in the user's Drive'), the open-world dependency on a prior picker action, and the specific failure mode for unpicked files. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

Longer than average, but every clause earns its place — scope, access model, parameter alternatives, error behavior, return type, and safety are all covered in service of a genuinely non-obvious usage model. The key constraint (what Hermoso can reach) is front-loaded. Slightly dense, but not padded.

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?

Complete for a read-only tool. No output schema exists, but the description explicitly states 'Returns the plain text.' Error-handling guidance, access preconditions, both parameters, and the scope limitation are all disclosed. The openWorldHint is reinforced by explaining the picker mechanism. Nothing an agent needs to invoke this correctly is missing.

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 parameters are already documented in the schema. The description adds minor value by noting documentId comes from create_doc and that docUrl is a paste-able Google Docs URL with the id extracted from it, which slightly clarifies intent beyond what the schema states. Baseline 3 is appropriate given high schema coverage.

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 and resource — 'Read the text of a Google Doc' — and immediately defines the scope boundary ('Hermoso can reach'). It is clearly distinct from siblings like list_drive_files, create_doc, and append_to_doc, and tells the agent exactly what it returns (plain text) without needing to open any schema.

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?

Excellent usage guidance. It explains the enabling precondition (doc must have been created by Hermoso or picked via the file picker), how to discover an id (list_drive_files), the two accepted input forms (documentId or docUrl), and even routes error handling ('file not found = user has not picked it, ask them to pick rather than retrying'). No exclusions are left implicit.

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