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

The description adds useful behavioral context about real charging, request_id handling, and generated-text output. However, it states that retrying with the same request_id and identical inputs is not charged again, which conflicts with the annotation idempotentHint=false for repeated identical calls.

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 front-loaded with purpose and scope, followed by billing/idempotency details and an output safety note. The sentences are compact and each adds relevant information without 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?

This is a 12-parameter tool with no output schema and sparse schema descriptions, so the description carries substantial burden. It covers purpose and charging but leaves most call-critical parameters and their interactions unexplained, making correct invocation harder for an agent.

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 only 33%, and the description explains little beyond request_id and the broad target types. It says the preview uses the first 1 to 3 rows while the schema allows rows up to 10 and includes row_numbers/sample_strategy, and it does not clarify prompt vs prompt_id, model, web_search, temperature, system_prompt, or reasoning_effort.

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 states a specific verb and resource: run a prompt on the first rows of a list or connected sheet. It also distinguishes the preview scope from a full run by emphasizing real output and cost before the full run.

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 clearly signals the intended context: preview before a full run and see output/cost first. It also gives the request_id procedural rule, but does not explicitly name alternatives such as estimate_cost or run_ai or state when not to use this tool.

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