Find a spreadsheet

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable context beyond that: the match set is a local list kept on the user's computer, the search is limited to that list, and empty-query behavior lists recent items. It does not discuss auth or result ordering limits, keeping it just short of a 5.

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-loads the core action and scope in the first clause, then layers trigger, limitation, fallback, and default behavior. Sentences are dense but each carries distinct information; only slight compression could improve it.

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 single-parameter lookup tool with no output schema, the definition covers scope, trigger, limitation, fallback, and default behavior. Nothing an agent needs to call 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%, so the baseline is 3. The description goes further by explaining that the sole optional parameter accepts part of a name and that leaving it empty lists the most recent, adding semantics the schema alone does not convey.

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 and resource ('Find a spreadsheet by name') and immediately bounds the scope to spreadsheets the user has opened or created via Sheets MCP, explicitly noting it cannot search the rest of Google Drive. This distinguishes it from link/id-based siblings like get_spreadsheet_info.

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?

Gives an explicit trigger ('when the user names a sheet instead of pasting a link, e.g. "my budget sheet"'), an explicit non-capability with a fallback ('can't search the rest of their Google Drive: if nothing matches, ask for the link'), and default behavior ('Leave query empty to list the most recent'). No inference required.

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