Spreadsheet overview

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 the useful behavioral fact that it returns only the first few rows per tab rather than everything, but it omits any note on what happens with very large sheets or where the preview cap comes from (the schema caps preview_rows at 20).

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 sentences, no filler. The enumeration of return contents comes first and the actionable instruction (call this first) is placed at the end as a routing cue, which is well front-loaded for scanning.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description carries the burden of describing the return shape and does so concretely. Combined with annotations covering read safety and schema-documented parameters, an agent has enough to call this correctly; only edge-case behavior on huge or unusual sheets is unaddressed.

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 coverage is 67%, with account and spreadsheet thoroughly documented in the schema itself, including the account-resolution fallback behavior. The description's "first few rows of each tab" loosely corresponds to preview_rows but adds no format or semantics beyond what the schema already states (default 3, max 20).

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 (get) and resource (spreadsheet info) and enumerates exactly what comes back: title, tabs with sizes and frozen rows/cols, charts with ids/types/data ranges, named ranges, and preview rows. This reads as a layout-discovery operation that is clearly distinct from the range read/write siblings.

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?

"Call this first to understand a sheet's layout" gives explicit sequencing guidance for the start of a workflow, which is exactly what an agent needs before reaching for read_range. It stops short of naming alternatives or stating when not to call it, but the usage context is unambiguous.

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