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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful context beyond that: a 7-day retention window (DEC-176), zero cost, and a prompt-injection warning that row values are customer data rather than instructions.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action and its special cases, then filtering, retention, cost, and a safety note — each sentence carries distinct information. The 'Free ($0)' clause is terse and useful, though the final sentence mixes a safety caveat into an otherwise operational description.

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 no output schema, the description carries the burden of explaining returns, and it only vaguely gestures at 'row values and run outputs' without listing fields such as written_to_sheet_at or per-row status. Retention, cost, and filtering are covered, but the shape of the response an agent will parse is left to inference.

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 limit, offset, max_cell_chars, status, and unwritten_only with defaults and ranges. The description only echoes the status enum values and unwritten_only, adding no semantics the schema lacks (e.g., what 'not_found' actually means or how truncation interacts with max_cell_chars) — baseline 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 names a specific verb and resource ('Read processed rows directly from a run (batch_job_rows)') and scopes it to Google Sheet runs that hit sheet_too_large or have unwritten_rows. It does not explicitly name the sibling it replaces (get_rows, export_run, get_run), so the differentiation from those is left implicit.

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?

Clear context is given for when this tool applies: after a run, including oversized sheet runs and rows that were never written. There is no explicit exclusion or 'use X instead when...' statement referencing get_rows or export_run, which keeps it below a 5.

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