Read document text

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

The description clearly indicates a read operation returning plain text, which conveys the primary behavior. However, with no annotations, it does not disclose any potential limitation, permission requirements, or error behavior, leaving the agent to infer these.

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, direct sentence: 'Read a Google Docs document as plain text.' It is concise, front-loaded, and contains no unnecessary 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 low-complexity tool with minimal schema and no output schema, the description adequately conveys the action and output format. However, it lacks explicit differentiation from sibling tools like google_docs_get, which is a minor gap.

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% for both parameters (account, documentId) with clear descriptions. The tool description does not add meaning beyond what the schema provides, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 ('read') and resource ('Google Docs document'), and specifies output format ('plain text'). It is clear, though it does not explicitly distinguish this tool from sibling tools like google_docs_get, which may serve a different but related purpose.

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?

No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of scenarios where google_docs_get would be preferred, or any exclusions or prerequisites.

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