read_google_doc

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the agent knows this is a safe read operation. The description adds useful context about output formats and the experimental nature of 'markdown', but doesn't disclose other behavioral traits like rate limits, authentication needs, or what happens with invalid inputs. 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?

The description is front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence, followed by essential usage details in two concise sentences. Every sentence earns its place by adding critical information without redundancy or fluff.

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?

Given the tool has readOnlyHint annotation and an output schema (implied by context signals), the description is reasonably complete for a read operation. It covers the main purpose and output formats, but could improve by addressing parameter nuances like 'tab_id' or error cases, though the output schema likely handles return values.

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 50%, with 'document_id' and 'format' well-described in the schema. The description adds value by explaining the purpose of the 'format' parameter with examples ('text', 'json', 'markdown'), but doesn't clarify 'max_length' or 'tab_id'. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema covers half the parameters adequately.

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 specific action ('Read the content') and resource ('of a Google Document'), distinguishing it from siblings like 'get_document_info' (metadata) or 'list_google_docs' (listing). It directly addresses what the tool does without ambiguity.

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 description provides clear context for when to use this tool by specifying it returns document content in various formats, implying it's for extracting content rather than metadata or editing. However, it doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives like 'get_document_info' for non-content purposes.

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