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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the public/no-auth nature, the return contents (canonical name, signature, description, category, rollout slice, example, alias map), and filter behavior. It does not mention pagination or effect of no filters, but for a read-only listing tool this is adequate.

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 information-dense and front-loaded with purpose, followed by usage guidance, return contents, filters, and auth. It is slightly long but every sentence earns its place; no fluff.

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?

Since there is no output schema, the description explains the return values in detail (canonical name, signature, description, category, slice, example, alias map). It also covers auth and filters. Missing pagination behavior is a minor gap but not critical for a list function.

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%, so the schema already documents all parameters. The description largely repeats the filter semantics (e.g., 'name substring-matches names + descriptions + signatures' mirrors the schema), adding only minimal context like the alias map in the return value.

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 'List the Dock Sheets formula functions an agent can use in a cell carrier' with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from siblings like evaluate_formula and validate_formula by focusing on function discovery rather than evaluation, and explicitly mentions use before writing formulas.

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?

Provides explicit guidance: 'Use this before writing a formula via update_row / create_row so you only reference functions that actually exist (no #NAME? errors).' This clearly indicates when to use it, though it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it.

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