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

Annotations already establish read-only, non-destructive, non-open-world behavior, so the bar is lower. The description adds that the call returns column definitions, views, and record counts, which is meaningful behavioral detail given no output schema exists.

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 payload front-loaded and the usage instruction second. Every clause earns its place.

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 carries the return-shape burden and does so reasonably (columns, views, record count), and annotations cover the safety profile. Minor gaps remain: no pagination/size hints for large tables and no mention of the query sibling for reading actual records.

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 all three parameters (sheetId, table, workspace) are already documented in the schema. The description adds no field-level syntax or format guidance beyond that, so the baseline 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?

The description specifies the exact payload (columns with name/type/choices, views, record count) for a table tab, which cleanly separates it from napkin_tables_query (records) and napkin_sheets_schema (sheet-level). It is a noun-style description of returned content rather than an explicit verb phrase, but the resource and scope are unmistakable.

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?

'Read this before writing records so field names and choices match' gives a clear, actionable when-to-use trigger tied to the write siblings (napkin_tables_add_records/update_records). It stops short of naming those siblings or the query alternative explicitly, so it is clear context without full alternative routing.

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