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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden but only adds minimal behavioral context ('with an initial tab', 'organize data in rows and columns'). It does not disclose side effects (e.g., whether it overwrites existing sheets), permission requirements, or response 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 concise sentences: the first states what the tool does, the second gives usage guidance. No redundancy or unnecessary detail.

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 creation tool with a rich schema, the description covers core purpose and use cases, but it omits what the response will contain (e.g., spreadsheet ID, URL). Since there is no output schema, this missing information makes the description incomplete.

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 all parameters. The tool description adds little beyond that, offering contextual background but no parameter-specific details, so it stays at the baseline of 3.

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 states 'Create a new spreadsheet' with synonyms and concrete use cases ('table, workbook, tracker, or organize data in rows and columns'). It effectively distinguishes this tool from siblings like create_document, create_slide_presentation, and create_sheet_tab.

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?

Explicitly provides when to use the tool ('Use this when asked to create a spreadsheet, table, workbook, tracker...'), giving clear context. However, it does not mention when not to use it or suggest alternatives, which would be helpful given the sibling tools.

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