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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent and non-destructive behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful authorization scope by stating the search only covers sheets 'currently visible to the authenticated user', which tells the agent results are permission-filtered — meaningful context beyond the annotations.

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?

A single tight sentence with the method, resource, field, and scope front-loaded, and no filler.

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?

Output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the tool is a simple single-parameter search. However, for a search tool the description omits matching behavior, result ordering/limits, and pagination, leaving the agent to guess how results are produced.

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 sole 'query' parameter has only constraints (min/max length, pattern) with no prose. The description compensates partially by naming the matched field ('title'), but says nothing about matching semantics — substring vs. exact, case sensitivity, or result limits.

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 ('Search every sheet') plus the matching field ('by title') and the scope ('currently visible to the authenticated user'). It is clearly distinct from sheets_search_rows, which searches rows rather than sheets, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sheets_list or workspace_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 no when-to-use guidance and does not mention alternatives such as sheets_list (listing) or workspace_search (cross-workspace search). The agent must infer from the name which sibling to pick.

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