How a sheet prints

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is established. The description confirms the read-only nature and lists the read scope, but adds no further behavioral details such as output format, failure modes, or side effects. No contradiction with 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?

Two purposeful sentences: the first defines the read scope with concrete examples, and the second gives usage context. There is no filler or repetition of schema details, making it appropriately efficient.

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?

For a simple read-only tool with only two fully documented parameters and an output schema present, the description is complete. It states what is read, when to call it, and the safety profile is covered by annotations. No essential information is missing for an agent to select and invoke it correctly.

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%: both file_path and sheet have clear descriptions in the input schema. The description does not add additional parameter meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline score of 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?

The description begins with a specific verb and resource: 'Reads how a worksheet is set up to print' and then enumerates exactly which aspects are read. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like xlide_read_cells or xlide_manage_sheet by narrowing the scope to print settings only.

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 second sentence gives explicit trigger conditions: 'Call it when asked why a sheet prints the way it does, or before changing a layout somebody set up deliberately.' This is clear context for when to use the tool, though it does not mention when-not-to-use or name alternative tools.

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