Get Google Document

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safe read-only nature is covered. The description adds context by detailing the return structure (title, content, metadata, JSON fields), which helps the agent anticipate the response. No contradictions 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 well-organized with Args, Returns, and Examples sections. Every line serves a purpose, providing necessary information without unnecessary verbosity. The main purpose is front-loaded, and the example makes usage concrete.

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 low complexity of the tool (2 params, simple read operation), the description is complete. It covers input parameters, output structure (including JSON format), and a concrete example. No output schema exists, but the description sufficiently explains what the agent will receive.

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 coverage is 100% with both parameters documented. The description adds extra value by specifying that document_id is found in the URL after /d/, and clarifies the response_format default and enum values, which are also in the schema but reinforced with explicit examples.

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 'Retrieve' and resource 'Google Doc content by its ID', clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like docs_create_document or drive_get_file. The purpose is unambiguous and directly reflects the tool's function.

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 clearly implies when to use this tool: to get the content of a specific Google Doc. It provides context on how to use it via arguments and return values, but does not explicitly exclude alternatives or mention when not to use it. This is clear context without formal exclusions.

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