Get document

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the return value is 'structural JSON' and implies a read operation through 'Get', but it does not explicitly state that this is read-only, nor does it mention any permissions, side effects, or rate limits. For a simple retrieval tool, the output format hint adds some value, but more explicit behavioral disclosure would be better.

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 immediately states the action and the output format. There is no unnecessary verbiage, and the key information is front-loaded. It is appropriately sized for a simple get operation.

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 tool with only two parameters and no output schema, the description provides enough information to call it correctly: it states what it does and the output format. However, it lacks any guidance on when to choose this over the sibling 'google_docs_read', which is a meaningful gap given the tool's simplicity. It does not need to explain return values in detail, but mentioning the differentiation would improve completeness.

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% — both 'account' and 'documentId' are described in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides. It does not explain the structure of the returned JSON or any nuances of the parameters, so it does not compensate for or enhance the schema's documentation.

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 clearly states the verb 'Get' and the resource 'full Google Docs document', and specifies the output as 'structural JSON'. It is specific enough to convey the tool's function, but it does not differentiate from the sibling 'google_docs_read', which could be a similar read operation. This leaves some ambiguity about which tool to use for different reading needs.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'google_docs_read'. The description does not mention any context, exclusions, or scenarios where one tool is preferred over another. An agent would have to infer usage from the name and schema alone, which is insufficient.

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