export_document

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

No annotations are provided, and the description only mentions export action and formats. It does not disclose behavioral details such as whether the tool downloads the file, returns content in the response, or any limitations (e.g., file size, authentication). This is insufficient for safe invocation.

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 very concise: a single sentence plus a compact list of formats. No redundant wording, every piece of information earns its place.

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 that the tool has no output schema and no annotations, the description should explain what the tool returns (e.g., file content or URL) and any side effects. It fails to do so, leaving the agent without critical context for how to use the exported data.

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?

The schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must add meaning. It clarifies that the 'format' parameter accepts values like text, html, pdf, docx (though not enumerating them in the schema). It does not explain the 'document_id' parameter beyond its name. This is marginal improvement over the bare schema.

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 tool exports a Google Docs document, includes a list of supported formats (text, html, pdf, docx), and is distinct from sibling tools like export_presentation and export_spreadsheet which target different resources.

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 implies usage via the resource name and formats but does not explicitly state when to use or avoid this tool, nor does it reference alternatives. The resource name provides enough context for a simple task, but lacks proactive guidance.

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