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

The readOnlyHint annotation already tells the agent this is non-mutating, and the description is consistent with that. It adds useful behavior the annotations cannot convey — that accounts returns workspace_id/brand_id/spreadsheet_id/sheet_id *and* available_requests, and that available_actions duplicates that payload — but says nothing about failure modes (e.g. invalid action name, missing identifiers) or response shape beyond field names.

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?

Numbered steps are front-loaded and each line earns its place, including the parenthetical warning that prevents a redundant available_actions call. The brands line is telegraphic — it says to pass two ids but not the condition under which brand guidelines are actually needed.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be detailed, and the workflow ordering plus the enum semantics are enough to drive correct invocation. Two gaps remain: the undocumented `platform` parameter and the absence of any statement about which tool performs the query after actions_details are retrieved.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description carries the full burden and mostly meets it: it defines three of the four request enum values by purpose, gives the format of `actions` (a list of table names), and pairs brand_id with workspace_id for the brands call. The `platform` parameter is never mentioned anywhere, leaving one of five parameters completely undefined.

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 states this is a helper for *planning* Google Sheets data queries and enumerates the four request modes with what each returns, which is specific enough to distinguish it as a discovery/metadata tool rather than an executor. It never names its siblings (query_data, execute_action), so the boundary between 'plan' and 'execute' must be inferred.

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?

Strong explicit sequencing: Step 1 accounts, Step 2 actions_details marked 'REQUIRED before querying', plus two calls flagged optional with the reason (available_actions is redundant with accounts). What is missing is the handoff — the description says 'before querying' but never states that the actual query runs through a different tool such as execute_action.

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