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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds return-behavior context ('Returns the answer and, when relevant, a suggested formula'), which is a small bonus, but says nothing about the odd idempotentHint=false, auth requirements, or rate limits.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with zero filler; the resource and capability come first, followed by examples and the return note. Slightly padded by the trailing return clause but still efficient.

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?

With an output schema present, the return value needn't be explained, and annotations carry the safety profile, so the description is largely sufficient for a two-parameter read-only query tool. Missing only routing guidance versus the document/ledger query siblings.

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 both parameters are already documented in the schema, and the question examples in the description largely duplicate the schema's own example. This 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 (query/compute over spreadsheets) and enumerates question types (sums, trends, lookups), making the scope clear. It doesn't explicitly distinguish itself from the near-identical sibling query_document or query_ledger, so an agent must infer the resource-type difference from the name.

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 examples ('total revenue in Q3', 'which region grew fastest') imply when the tool is appropriate, but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not, or routing guidance to the sibling query_document/query_ledger tools. Usage is inferable but not stated.

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