docs_get

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description aligns with that by saying 'Read' rather than modifying anything. The description adds useful behavioral nuance beyond the annotations: it returns 'full structured content' and implies that the structured output may be heavier than plain text for simple use cases. This enriches the agent's understanding without contradicting the 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 two compact sentences with no fluff. The primary action is front-loaded, and the alternative guidance is appended efficiently. Every word contributes value.

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 single-parameter read-only tool, the description covers the essential usage and provides a clear alternative. The lack of an output schema is mitigated by the description's mention of 'full structured content,' though a bit more detail about the return shape could make it 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 coverage is 0% because the documentId property has no description. The description does not explicitly explain the parameter, but 'Read a Google Doc's full structured content' implicitly clarifies that documentId refers to the identifier of that Google Doc. This adds some meaning beyond the bare schema, though explicit parameter documentation would be stronger.

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 identifies the exact resource ('a Google Doc's full structured content'). It also contrasts itself with drive_export, making the distinction from a sibling clear and helping an agent select correctly.

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?

It explicitly states when to prefer an alternative: 'For plain prose, drive_export with text/markdown is usually easier to work with.' This provides both a usage condition and a named alternative, leaving no ambiguity about when docs_get is the right choice.

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