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

Annotations already establish readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive/closed-world, so the bar is lower, and the description adds real context beyond them: results are permission-filtered ('visible columns only'), scoped to the calling credential ('this key's scopes'), and implicitly derive the org from the key. It stops short of describing the shape or ordering of the returned sheets list.

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?

Five short clauses, zero filler, with the core content and the 'call this first' directive front-loaded. Every sentence carries distinct information: return contents, filtering, alternative routing, and the parameter constraint.

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 no-parameter read tool with full annotation coverage and no output schema, the description covers what comes back, who sees what, and how it relates to get_sheet_settings. Only the format/shape of the returned sheets and columns is left implicit, which is a minor gap.

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?

Zero parameters gives a baseline of 4, and the description goes further by preempting a likely mistake: an agent cannot pass an organization id, the workspace is derived from the key. No further parameter detail is possible or needed.

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 identifies the resource and its returned contents (org, sheets, and sheet 1 columns) and explicitly separates itself from get_sheet_settings for other sheets. The opening is a telegraphic noun list rather than a verb phrase, so the agent must infer 'retrieves workspace info,' but the sibling distinction is unambiguous.

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 an explicit ordering directive ('Call this first'), names the alternative for the adjacent case ('Use get_sheet_settings for other sheets'), and adds an invocation constraint ('Does not accept an organization id'). An agent knows both when to reach for this tool and what to use instead.

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