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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It discloses an important behavioral trait: 'Sheets are read-only over MCP,' preventing inappropriate write attempts. It also states what will be returned (column schema, constraints, dependencies), though it does not detail output format or error behavior.

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 sentences, front-loads the core purpose, and contains no filler or redundant restatement of the tool name. Every clause adds useful information.

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 schema getter with no output schema, the description covers the main essentials: what it retrieves, when to use it, and its read-only nature. It omits how to discover sheet_id and the exact return structure, but these are minor gaps for a tool of this simplicity.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for the undocumented sheet_id parameter. It only refers to 'an ad sheet,' adding no guidance on the expected format of sheet_id or how to obtain it (e.g., via list_ad_sheets). The parameter name is self-explanatory to some degree, but the description does not add meaningful semantic value beyond it.

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 names a specific action and resource: 'Retrieve column schema, constraints, and dependencies for an ad sheet.' It also clarifies the purpose as reading or explaining a sheet's structure, which clearly distinguishes it from mutation-oriented siblings like update_entity or create_ad.

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 explicitly says when to use it: 'use it to read or explain a sheet's structure.' It also sets a boundary by noting that 'rows are created and edited in the ADSAP web app,' indicating this tool is not for editing. It does not name a specific sibling alternative like list_ad_sheets for finding sheet_id, but the usage context is clear.

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