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

Goes well beyond the annotations (idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false) by disclosing the destination folder, the idempotent no-double-copy behavior on re-invocation, the two-minute timeout with a remaining count, the refusal while a run is editing, and the fact that nothing is billed.

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 dense sentences that front-load the core action and then stack behavioral facts (skip logic, return payload, timeout/continuation, refusal, billing). Slightly packed, but 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?

Despite no output schema, the description explains the return payload (drive and folder, written/skipped counts, failures, remaining count). Combined with annotations and full schema coverage, an agent has everything needed to call and interpret this tool.

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 the schema already documents workbook, context, and llm_model, including the context privacy constraints. The description adds no additional parameter-level detail, so 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 specific verb (Copies) plus resource (every web source the current version cites) and destination (account's connected drive, in the workbook's subject folder), and anchors it to a known app action ('the same as Save to Dropbox in the app'). This is clearly distinguishable from sibling workbook_sources and recheck_sources.

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 specifies meaningful conditions: it only copies web sources (files already on a drive are left alone), it is refused while a run is editing the workbook, and calling again continues a timed-out run. It doesn't explicitly name sibling alternatives, but the conditions cover when the tool applies and when it is blocked.

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