Get document

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable behavioral detail beyond annotations: it specifies that the tool returns metadata fields and plain-text content, and that it spans all tabs. This is useful context for return-value expectations, though it doesn't cover edge cases like truncation or permission failures.

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 concise sentences with no filler. The first sentence front-loads the core function and output, and the second gives a practical use case. Every word 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?

For a read-only tool with no output schema, the description does a good job of summarizing what the agent will receive (metadata plus plain-text content) and why it's useful. It doesn't fully cover what happens when max_chars is hit or whether the content is formatted, but the schema covers the main parameter, and the core use case is clearly supported.

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 description coverage is 100%, with all three parameters already documented in the input schema. The description adds little parameter-level semantics beyond what the schema provides, e.g., it doesn't describe the interaction between max_chars and content truncation. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 resource ('a Google Doc') and the exact scope: metadata (title, owner, last modified) and plain-text content across all tabs. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like list_documents and the comment-specific tools by clarifying this is about reading the document text, not listing or fetching comments.

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 phrase 'Useful to understand what the comments refer to' provides clear context for when to use this tool, especially alongside the comment-related siblings. It doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, but the context is strong enough for an agent to infer the intended use case.

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