get_document_info

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavior disclosure. It explicitly states 'Read-only' and precisely describes the live-mode variant: same key names, added 'words' and track_revisions, omitted part list. This gives an agent a clear model of what will happen without surprises.

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?

Two sentences with no fluff. The main purpose and scope are front-loaded, and the parenthetical second sentence earns its place by explaining the critical live-mode behavior. Nothing repeats the schema or annotations.

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?

The output schema covers return values, so the description's lack of output detail is acceptable. It covers purpose, read-only safety, and live-mode differences. The main gaps are explicit usage routing and the live parameter's allowed values, so it is not fully 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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains the effect of live mode but does not clarify what values the live string parameter accepts or what 'auto' means. file_path is self-evident from its name, but the core live parameter's semantics are only partially covered.

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 names a precise resource: a one-call document overview with enumerated elements (paragraph/table/footnote/comment/revision counts, sections, package parts). This clearly distinguishes it from single-purpose siblings like word_count, get_outline, or list_tables. 'Read-only' further reinforces intent.

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 phrase 'one-call document overview' implies use when an aggregate summary is needed rather than a specific detail, but the description does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternative tools. With a large sibling list, routing is left partly to inference.

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