List Spreadsheets

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the access-based scoping (spreadsheets the user can access, not merely owns), which is useful beyond the annotations. It does not mention pagination or ordering, but with annotation coverage the bar is met at a basic level.

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?

A single 12-word sentence that front-loads the verb and resource with zero filler. Every word earns its place and the core scope ('spreadsheets from Google Drive that the user has access to') is stated immediately.

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 no description; annotations cover the safety profile; and both parameters are fully documented. The real gap is tool-selection context: nothing distinguishes this from search_drive_files or list_drive_items, which matters in a sibling set this large. For a simple list operation, the definition is otherwise adequately complete.

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 user_google_email and max_results are already fully described in the input schema, including the default of 25. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning, so the baseline 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 uses a specific verb ('Lists') and a specific resource ('spreadsheets from Google Drive that the user has access to'), so an agent can tell this enumerates accessible spreadsheets. It implicitly distinguishes from siblings like list_drive_items (all files) and get_spreadsheet_info (single spreadsheet metadata), but it does not name any alternative sibling, so the differentiation is implicit rather than explicit.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no alternatives named. With roughly 90 siblings including search_drive_files, list_drive_items, and get_spreadsheet_info, the description gives the agent no textual basis for selecting this tool over those that could also surface spreadsheet data. The phrase 'that the user has access to' supplies minor scope context but no routing guidance.

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