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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context the annotations cannot: the shape of the returned artifact (CREATE TABLE scripts with row counts) and the semantic mapping that each tab is a table, its header row names columns, and formula cells contribute computed values. It does not mention pagination or size limits for large sheets, which keeps it short of 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, no filler. The purpose and return shape are front-loaded, and the imperative prerequisite ('Read this BEFORE...') closes the description as the action-driving clause.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description carries the burden of describing the return value — and it does, down to the CREATE TABLE format, row counts, column naming, and formula evaluation. For a two-parameter read-only tool this is complete.

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 sheetId and workspace are already fully documented, including the workspace-token rules. The description only implies that a sheet is addressed, adding no syntax or format detail beyond the schema — the baseline 3 for schema-carried parameters.

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 — CREATE TABLE scripts with row counts') and immediately distinguishes itself from napkin_sheets_query, which returns data rather than structure. An agent can tell the two apart without opening either 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 prescribes the workflow: 'Read this BEFORE writing a napkin_sheets_query so your SQL matches the real tables.' It names the sibling tool and the condition that should trigger this call, 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.