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

The description contradicts the openWorldHint annotation by claiming 'each source ... in order,' implying a complete result set, while the annotation signals non-exhaustive results. It also fails to mention that max_sources may cap returned sources, leaving a significant truncation behavior undisclosed.

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 concise, front-loaded sentences with no filler. It leads with the resource and return contents, then gives the batching constraint. Every sentence 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?

There is no output schema, so the description must carry the return-value burden; it names the fields but overclaims completeness. It also omits max_sources behavior and any error/missing-sheet behavior, leaving a needed gap for reliable invocation.

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 compensate for both parameters. It explains that ids can be multiple and up to 10 sheets can be fetched, but it never explains max_sources or its effect on the returned source list, so an agent cannot infer the truncation behavior.

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: getting a user-made source sheet by id. It also lists what is returned—title, author, tags, sources, and commentary blocks—which clearly distinguishes it from browse_library, list_source_sheets, and get_sheet_tags.

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 makes the use case clear: fetch specific sheets when you already have their ids, with batching up to 10. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or exclusion conditions, but the 'by id' framing is strong enough context.

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