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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely useful runtime behavior: resolution is sequential with prior values fed forward, and the call halts and returns options on the first property lacking a `selectedValue`. It also warns to use `value` rather than `label` from returns — useful context the annotations cannot express.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the mechanism, then the driving rule, then the value-vs-label caveat. Every sentence carries distinct information with zero filler.

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 read-only, nullable-output resolution tool, the description covers the tricky parts an agent must get right (cascading order, the stopping condition, value-over-label). No output schema exists, and the description only gestures at the returned options structure, but annotations plus schema fill most remaining gaps.

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 six parameters (including the nested propertyChain items) are documented structurally. The description restates selectedValue's behavior but adds no format or syntax beyond the schema, which is the expected baseline when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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+resource (resolve a chain of dependent dropdown properties) and the exact scope: it handles cascading fields by resolving each property sequentially, feeding prior values forward. This distinguishes it from the single-property sibling ap_resolve_property_options without needing the 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?

Clearly states when to use it ('For actions with cascading fields, e.g. Spreadsheet → Sheet → Columns') and how to drive it (pass `selectedValue` for known values; the tool stops and returns options otherwise). It stops short of naming the single-property alternative explicitly, so an agent must infer the split from the description alone.

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