get_article_content_from_doc

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral burden, and it does meaningfully: it discloses a read-style operation (download + extract) and a notable transformation ('tablas convertidas a listas'). It does not cover auth requirements or failure modes, but the core processing behavior is transparent enough for safe invocation.

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?

A single, well-structured sentence front-loads the action, lists extracted fields, and appends the Drupal-ready format and table conversion as a parenthetical. There is no filler and every clause earns its place.

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 one-parameter extraction tool with no output schema, the description adequately names all delivered content fields and one important transform. It does not clarify the relationship to create_node (i.e., that this tool only extracts, it does not publish the Drupal node), but the core call semantics are complete.

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% and the sole parameter docUrlOrId is already described as 'URL o ID del Google Doc'. The tool description adds no additional parameter-level meaning, so the baseline of 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?

The description opens with specific verbs ('Descarga y extrae') tied to a concrete resource (Google Doc) and enumerates exactly what is extracted: título, meta título, meta descripción, intro y body. It also names the target format (HTML listo para Drupal), making the tool's purpose unmistakable and clearly distinct from the sibling node CRUD tools.

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 intended use is implied: pull content from a Google Doc in a Drupal-ready format. However, there is no explicit guidance about when to use this tool versus list_nodes/get_node/create_node/update_node, nor any mention of prerequisites such as document sharing permissions.

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