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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive, and an output schema exists, so the safety and return-format burdens are largely carried elsewhere. The description still adds workflow context (pre-edit metadata fetch, preserving existing schema/data) that is not encoded in any structured field.

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, front-loaded with the primary purpose, then constraints, then alternatives. No filler or restatement of the title.

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 one-parameter, read-only metadata getter with an existing output schema and full annotation coverage, the agent has everything needed: what it returns, when to call it, and what to call instead.

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% and the single sheetId parameter is never mentioned in the description. The schema's format:uuid gives partial signal, but the description does nothing to clarify the identifier, so it neither compensates nor adds value here.

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 (Get) and resource (sheet metadata) and enumerates exactly what comes back: column types, stable IDs, option IDs, versions. It explicitly distinguishes itself from sheets_query for cell values and from create/add-column receipts for newly created sheets, so an agent can route correctly without opening a schema.

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?

Gives an explicit when-to-use trigger (read metadata before editing an existing sheet) and names two alternatives with the condition that selects them: reuse receipts for fresh sheets, and sheets_query for cell values. This is close to a complete routing rule.

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