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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), but the description adds substantive behavioral context: the proposals 'have not been applied', the returned evidence fields, and the 'cite only sources supporting the proposed outcome' constraint. It stops short of documenting pagination or limits on the returned set.

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 compact sentences, front-loaded with the read scope followed by return fields and then the usage constraint. No filler, though the return-field listing is somewhat dense.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, yet the description still enumerates them and ties the tool to the review workflow. Combined with the read-only annotations, an agent has what it needs, with only minor gaps around result limits.

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 carries the burden. It implies the two parameters ('specified sheet rows', sheet context) but adds no detail on the rowIds array constraints (uuid format, 1–500 items) or the sheetId format, leaving the schema to do most of the work.

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+resource+scope: 'Read attached, completed enrichment proposals for the specified sheet rows.' This clearly distinguishes it from siblings such as sheets_review_enrichment_proposals and sheets_get_enrichment_status without needing to open any 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?

Names the downstream tool explicitly ('Review with sheets_review_enrichment_proposals') and adds a prohibition ('never copy proposals into unfenced cell writes'), which directs correct usage. It does not state explicit exclusions or when not to call it, so it falls short of a full 5.

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