read_google_doc

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

Discloses that it extracts text preserving paragraph structure, and returns doc ID, title, content, and URL. However, with no annotations, it does not cover auth requirements, rate limits, or read-only nature beyond the verb 'Read'.

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?

Straightforward three sentences: purpose, extraction detail, and Args/Returns section. Front-loaded with clear verb and resource. No redundancy.

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 read tool with one parameter and no annotations or output schema, description adequately covers usage and return values. Could mention error handling or permissions, but overall complete enough for typical 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?

Single parameter 'document_id' is described with a helpfultip on where to find it ('found in the document URL'), adding meaning beyond the schema which only has a title. Schema coverage is 0%, but description compensates fully.

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?

Description clearly states 'Read the full content of a Google Document,' using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like append_to_google_doc and get_google_doc_metadata by explicitly focusing on reading full content.

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?

Implied usage (use to read document content) but no explicit guidance on when to use vs alternatives like get_google_doc_metadata. Does not mention exclusions or prerequisites.

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