Numbers: inspect format

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so safety is covered by structured data. The description adds genuine context beyond that: it is a prerequisite read step and it enumerates the specific style attributes returned, which helps the agent understand the output scope. No output format detail is given, but an output schema exists.

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?

Front-loaded with the returned attribute list, which is efficient. The 'Read this before formatting' and 'Use before formatting to see current styles...' sentences restate the same instruction, a mild redundancy that costs a point.

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; within that constraint the description covers what the tool returns, when to call it, and where to go for values instead. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly is missing.

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 100% and the schema already documents path, sheet, and table. The description adds no additional parameter-level meaning (no format, defaults, or selection semantics beyond what the schema states), so the baseline 3 applies.

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 (inspect) and resource (formatting of a Numbers table), then enumerates exactly what is returned: column widths, row heights, headers, merges, per-cell font/colour/fill/alignment, number format, borders. This clearly distinguishes it from the numbers_set_* sibling writers and from iwork_read.

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 instructs to read this before formatting, describes the condition that selects it (need current styles/sizes/headers/merges), and names an alternative for a different need ('For values use iwork_read'). When-to-use and sibling routing are both present.

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