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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine concurrency context by tying the call to the column's entityVersion and requiring version refresh after each committed batch, but it doesn't explain mismatch/conflict behavior or permission requirements.

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?

Two sentences, no filler. The core action is front-loaded, and the alternative workflow follows immediately after.

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 no explanation, and annotations cover safety. However, with only 20% schema description coverage and an optimistic-concurrency contract, the description leaves open what happens on version mismatch and whether the width value range (192–1200) is meaningful to callers.

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 coverage is only 20%, so the description should compensate. It clarifies that width is in pixels and that expectedColumnVersion corresponds to the column's entityVersion, but sheetId, columnId, and retry semantics for idempotencyKey are left to the schema (only idempotencyKey has a description).

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: 'Set one shared column width in pixels', which is clearly distinct from siblings like sheets_rename_column, sheets_update_column, or sheets_reorder_columns. It does not explicitly name an alternative sibling, so it stops short of the top mark.

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?

Provides clear context for the single-column case versus a bulk path ('Use scripts to resize multiple columns concurrently'), plus a batch workflow instruction. No explicit when-not-to-use or error guidance, so it falls short of 5.

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