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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds one genuinely useful behavioral fact — results are ordered newest first — but says nothing about pagination semantics or the scope of what is listed.

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?

A single short sentence with the ordering fact front-loaded and no filler. It is efficient, though the brevity comes partly at the cost of the disambiguation an agent would want.

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?

This is a simple two-parameter read tool with full annotation coverage and complete schema documentation, so the bar is low. Still, the ambiguity of 'folder rows' versus folder contents, and the lack of any pointer to the sibling read/list tools, leaves a real gap.

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%, and the limit/cursor descriptions already explain the legacy bare-array vs. paginated response shapes in detail. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond the schema, 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?

States a verb (List) and a resource (spreadsheet_folder rows) and adds ordering ('newest first'), so the operation itself is identifiable. However, 'spreadsheet_folder rows' is ambiguous: it is unclear whether this returns folder records themselves or the contents/rows within a folder, and with siblings like spreadsheet_file_list and spreadsheet_folder_read present, the description does not disambiguate.

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?

No indication of when to use this versus spreadsheet_folder_read or spreadsheet_file_list, and no prerequisites or exclusions. The agent must infer usage purely from the name.

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