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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It conveys that this is a create/mutation operation, but it omits any context about permissions, name conflicts, what happens to existing sheets, or the return value/response format. This is minimal transparency for a tool with side effects.

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?

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence, which earns it points for conciseness. However, it is under-specified given the tool's 3 parameters and the absence of other documentation. While not as sparse as a single word, it does not cover necessary details, making it only minimally appropriate in size.

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?

The description is one sentence and incomplete in context. There is no output schema, no annotations, and no parameter descriptions in the schema. The tool involves 3 parameters, yet the description says nothing about how they are used, what the result is, or any prerequisites. This is completely inadequate for an agent to use the tool correctly.

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?

The input schema has 3 parameters (name, values, sheetName) with 0% description coverage. The description 'Create a new Google Sheet.' provides no additional meaning for these parameters—it does not explain that 'name' is likely the sheet file name, 'values' is initial data, or 'sheetName' is the inner tab. The description entirely fails to compensate for the schema's lack of documentation.

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 'Create a new Google Sheet.' clearly states the verb and resource, making the basic action unmistakable. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like create_excel or append_to_sheet, so it lacks the distinguishing context needed for an agent to confidently select it among similar tools.

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention scenarios where this is preferred or mention any exclusions. With numerous sibling tools for creating documents, spreadsheets, or appending data, the lack of usage context is a significant gap.

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