sheets_get_info

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It says 'Get', implying a read-only operation, and lists what is returned, which is helpful. However, it does not explicitly state that it does not modify the spreadsheet, nor does it disclose any permission requirements or error behavior. For a simple getter, this is acceptable but not exhaustive.

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?

The description is a single concise sentence with the main action front-loaded ('Get spreadsheet metadata') and concrete examples following. No unnecessary words or repetition.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (1 parameter) and the presence of an output schema, the description captures the essential behavior. It does not explain what happens with invalid IDs or permissions, but those are not critical for a basic metadata getter, and the output schema covers return values. Some mention of spreadsheet identifier format could have bumped this to 5.

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?

The schema has 0% description coverage for the single parameter spreadsheet_id. The description does not provide any additional meaning about the parameter, such as accepted formats (e.g., URL vs ID) or how to obtain it. The parameter name is self-explanatory, but the description should compensate for the schema gap and does not.

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?

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Get spreadsheet metadata' followed by specific examples (title, sheets/tabs, row and column counts). This uses a specific verb and resource, and is distinct from sibling tools like sheets_read which would handle cell values, not metadata.

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?

Usage context is implied by the phrase 'spreadsheet metadata' and the listed return items, which suggests using this for structural information rather than cell data. However, there is no explicit statement of when to use vs alternatives or exclusions, so it relies on the reader to infer the intended use case.

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