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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint/idempotentHint/destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely non-obvious behavioral context: it is a read-only entrypoint and does not incur paid research, and the query reaches sheets outside the initial page. The phrase "browse, search and edit" sits in mild tension with readOnlyHint, but the explicit "read-only entrypoint" clause resolves it.

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?

Three tight sentences with the core action front-loaded and no filler. The only slight cost is the ambiguous "edit" in the opening sentence, which forces the reader to reconcile it with the following "read-only" clause.

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?

A rich annotation set plus an output schema mean safety and return values need not be re-explained, and the description covers the remaining gaps (read-only, no paid research, query reach). It is nearly complete for a single-optional-param entrypoint; only sibling routing is absent.

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 0%, so the description must carry the param meaning. It does: "Pass a query to search across the accessible catalogue, including sheets outside the initial page" explains both the query's function and its reach beyond the default page, which the schema's pattern/maxLength do not convey.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ("Open the connected Leadbase workspace") plus the scope of what the workspace enables (browse, search, edit sheets), which goes beyond simply restating the name. It does not, however, differentiate itself from overlapping siblings like sheet_workspace, workspace_search, or sheets_search.

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?

The description gives one useful negative signal — "does not start paid research" — which implicitly routes cost-incurring work to sheets_research/enrichment_start. But it never states when to use this entrypoint versus the numerous search/list siblings, so usage is only implied.

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