docs_read_document

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

Annotations already mark it read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive; the description goes further by disclosing the lossy extraction behavior (tables/images/formatting dropped), reading order, and truncation behavior with max_chars. It also states the exact return shape, which is useful beyond the 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?

The description is compact and front-loaded: purpose in the first sentence, key limitation in the second, and return contract in the final block. No filler or redundant restatement of the tool name.

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 read operation, the description covers the core behavior, limitations, truncation semantics, and returned fields. Combined with the input schema's parameter descriptions and the read-only annotations, an agent has everything needed to call it correctly.

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 tool description ties max_chars to the returned truncated flag and mentions truncation, adding modest semantic context. The schema already provides descriptions for document_id and max_chars, so the description does not substantially clarify parameter syntax or source beyond that.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Read the plain-text content of a Google Doc.' It also clarifies what is not preserved (tables, images, rich formatting), which distinguishes this from richer document read or spreadsheet tools without needing to inspect the 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?

It clearly establishes this is for extracting paragraph text in reading order and explicitly warns that tables/images/rich formatting are not preserved, which implies when not to use it. However, it does not name alternative tools such as drive_read_file_content or sheets_read_range for structured content.

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