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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It communicates that the tool is an overview/read-style operation and enumerates the returned information. It does not explicitly state permissions, errors, or that the tool is strictly read-only, but its wording strongly implies non-mutating behavior.

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 two sentences with no filler. The output is front-loaded, and the workflow guidance is placed immediately after, making it easy for an agent to parse and act on.

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 zero-parameter overview tool, the description is complete: it specifies what is returned, how it should be used first, and which sibling tools should follow. No output schema exists, but the description provides enough return-value context.

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 tool has zero parameters and 100% schema description coverage, so there is no parameter ambiguity. The description correctly avoids adding unnecessary parameter detail.

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 clearly identifies the tool as a workbook overview, listing exact outputs: every sheet tab, used range, current revision, and the open sheet's header row. This is specific and distinguishes it from other sheet/document 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?

It gives explicit sequencing: 'Call this first, then pass the tab name... to sheet_read and sheet_find.' This is clear contextual guidance, though it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or compare it to a direct sibling alternative.

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