Get Doc as Markdown

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint. The description adds valuable behavioral context about how comments are handled (default included, anchor text preserved, comment_mode options) and which formatting elements are preserved. It does not contradict 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-structured into three concise paragraphs: purpose, differentiation, and comment behavior. Each sentence earns its place with no redundancy, making it easy to parse.

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 read-only nature confirmed by annotations and the presence of an output schema, the description is complete. It covers the tool's core behavior, differentiation from similar tools, and comment handling. There are no significant gaps.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the baseline is 3. The description adds meaning by explaining the effect of comment-related parameters, such as the default behavior of including comments and preserving anchor text. This helps the agent understand the purpose of include_comments and comment_mode beyond their schema descriptions.

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's function: 'Reads a Google Doc and returns it as clean Markdown with optional comment context.' It uses a specific verb and resource, and explicitly differentiates from sibling get_doc_content by noting it returns plain text while this preserves formatting.

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 provides explicit usage guidance by contrasting with get_doc_content: 'Unlike get_doc_content which returns plain text, this tool preserves document formatting as Markdown.' This tells the agent when to choose this tool over the alternative, and the comment context section clarifies behavior around comments.

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