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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavior about the returned content (row counts, header-row column naming, formula cells yielding computed values), which matters since there is no output schema. It stops short of noting auth/permission or size limits, so not a 5.

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?

Two sentences, zero filler, with the return shape front-loaded and the usage instruction placed second. Every clause carries information an agent needs.

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?

With no output schema, the description correctly assumes the burden of explaining return content and does so precisely, while the 100%-covered input schema handles parameters. Nothing essential for correct invocation is missing.

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 both parameters (sheetId, workspace) are fully documented in the schema itself. The description adds nothing about parameter formats or constraints, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Returns a sheet's tabs as SQL table definitions') and immediately clarifies the shape of the result (CREATE TABLE scripts with row counts, header row naming columns, formula cells contributing computed values). An agent can distinguish it from napkin_sheets_query and napkin_sheets_list without opening any schema.

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?

Explicitly routes usage: 'Read this BEFORE writing a napkin_sheets_query so your SQL matches the real tables.' It names the sibling it pairs with and the ordering condition that selects it, leaving nothing to inference.

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