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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavior beyond that: results are ordered newest-first, archived sheets are hidden by default, and counts are included per sheet — all of which affect how the agent interprets the result set.

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 dense sentences with zero filler: the first front-loads what is listed and how results are shaped, the second handles filtering defaults and the downstream tool chain. 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?

For a simple list tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description supplies ordering, filtering defaults, and result content, which is enough to call it correctly. It stops short of mentioning pagination or result caps, a minor gap for a listing endpoint.

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 `q`, `workspace`, and `includeArchived`, including the workspace-default rules. The description repeats the `includeArchived` default and `q` title-matching without adding syntax, format, or precedence detail beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 (lists) and resource (Napkin sheets) and defines the resource inline as 'multi-tab spreadsheets — the small-data surface', distinguishing it from sibling surfaces like tables and boards. It also specifies ordering and return content (newest first, tab/chart counts), so an agent knows exactly what this returns.

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 the agent to the follow-up flow: 'Inspect one with napkin_sheets_schema, then query it with napkin_sheets_query,' which names the correct alternatives and their sequence. However, it gives no exclusion criteria (e.g., skip listing when the sheet id is already known), so it stops short of full when/when-not guidance.

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