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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so safety is covered. The description adds real behavioral context beyond them: a 25-sheet cap, inclusion of tabs, the semantics of the legacy_full_access flag, and an explicit prompt-injection warning that titles are customer data rather than instructions. It omits the per-sheet field layout, which matters since no output schema exists.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with the scope cap and tabs before the flag explanation and safety note. Phrasing is telegraphic ('Free.') but no sentence is padding.

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 read tool, the description covers scope, limits, a returned flag, and a security caveat. Because there is no output schema, it could more fully sketch the returned fields per sheet, but what is present is enough to call it correctly.

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 takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; the baseline of 4 applies. Mentioning legacy_full_access is about returned data, not inputs, and is still useful signalling.

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 concrete resource — Google Sheets opened with the Sorzio add-on, including their tabs — and bounds the scope (up to 25). It is distinguishable from read_sheet, though the actual verb 'list' only appears in the name/title rather than the prose.

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 implies the workflow by explaining that legacy_full_access true means read_sheet works on any sheet, which hints at this tool as a discovery step. However, it never explicitly says 'call this first to find sheet IDs, then use read_sheet', so the when-to-use routing is left to inference.

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