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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, not destructive, not open-world), so the description only needs to add context. It does so usefully with 'current values' (vs. history/versions), 'one accessible sheet' (scope/auth), and 'results use sheet order' (ordering behavior). It stops short of stating pagination or truncation behavior against the limit cap.

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: purpose first, parameter note second, alternative routing last. Zero filler, everything front-loaded and each clause earns its place.

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-value explanation is unnecessary, and the description covers scope, ordering, and the key alternative. The only meaningful gap is the undocumented limit parameter and its 25-row ceiling, which an agent would need to know to interpret results.

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 parameter meaning. It explains columnIds ('optional column IDs restrict the search') and implies query semantics ('text matches'), but says nothing about limit (capped at 25) or sheetId. Partial compensation for a fully undocumented schema.

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 ('Find text matches in current values of one accessible sheet') and immediately differentiates itself from the sibling sheets.query by naming it. An agent can distinguish this row-search tool from the exhaustive query tool without opening either 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?

Explicitly routes the agent to sheets.query for 'exhaustive filters, sorting, and calculations,' giving a clear when-not condition. It does not, however, clarify when this tool is preferable to the similarly named sheets_search sibling, leaving one routing inference to the agent.

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