get_google_doc_metadata

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses it is a read-only operation that retrieves specific metadata fields. Does not mention auth or errors, but for a simple read, the behavioral traits are sufficiently clear.

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?

Concise and well-structured: short paragraph followed by Args and Returns sections. Every sentence adds value, no 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 simple tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers purpose, return fields, and what it does not do. Lacks error handling or prerequisites, but overall complete enough for effective use.

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?

Only one parameter (document_id) with schema description coverage 0%. Description adds 'The ID of the Google Document' which is minimal but confirms its purpose. Lacks format or example, but baseline score of 3 is appropriate given the schema provides type and required info.

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?

Clearly states it gets metadata for a Google Doc, lists specific metadata (title, revision ID, URL, page size), and explicitly distinguishes from reading full content, differentiating it from sibling read_google_doc.

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?

Implicitly tells when to use (when only metadata needed) and when not (full content needed) by stating 'without reading the full content'. Does not explicitly list sibling alternatives but the contrast with read_google_doc is clear.

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