List Spreadsheet Comments

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the core safety profile is covered. The description adds the behavioral detail that max_comments can limit the returned results, which is useful beyond the schema. It does not contradict the annotations, but it also does not disclose anything about pagination, reply inclusion, or comment ordering.

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 sentence with no filler, front-loading the action and resource before the optional parameter detail. Every word earns its place, and the parenthetical keeps the optional limit information out of the main clause.

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 list tool with an output schema and strong safety annotations, the description is reasonably complete. However, it lacks guidance on tool selection and leaves the user_google_email parameter semantically unexplained. These are meaningful gaps, but not severe enough to make the tool unusable.

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 the input schema's lack of explanations. It only adds meaning to max_comments by saying it limits results, and it implicitly maps spreadsheet_id to 'a Google Spreadsheet'. The required user_google_email parameter is completely unexplained, leaving the agent to infer its purpose from the name alone.

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 states a clear verb and resource: 'List all comments from a Google Spreadsheet'. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like list_document_comments and list_presentation_comments by explicitly naming the spreadsheet context. The optional max_comments parenthesis further clarifies the tool's scope.

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 gives no explicit guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as manage_spreadsheet_comment or list_document_comments. It does not state any exclusions, prerequisites, or when to prefer a sibling tool. The only usage hint is the optional max_comments parameter, which is about result limiting rather than tool selection.

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