Describe a worksheet

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It transparently states the tool does not pull the full dataset, returns only headers, row count, and up to 3 sample rows, and is safe to call first. It could add nuance about whether sample rows are the first rows or random, but overall it gives enough context for a read-only inspection tool.

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: the first front-loads the purpose and return values; the second gives direct usage guidance. Every word is purposeful, with no fluff or repetition. Highly concise and well-structured.

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?

Despite no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the essential context: what callers receive (headers, row count, sample rows), when to invoke it (first on unfamiliar sheets), and why (to avoid pulling everything). For a simple inspection tool with fully documented parameters, this is 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% for all 5 parameters, so the schema already fully documents their meaning. The description adds limited parameter-level detail beyond what the schema provides (e.g., 'headerRow' is self-explanatory). This meets the baseline but does not go further.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource ('Inspect a sheet') and clearly defines its scope: returns column headers, total row count, and up to 3 sample rows. It also differentiates from sibling tools by emphasizing it's a lightweight inspection ('without pulling its data') and explicitly mentions the targeted use case for get_permission_matrix.

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 provides explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Call this FIRST against an unfamiliar matrix'. It also states why (to build a targeted filter) and contrasts with the alternative 'pulling everything' via get_permission_matrix, effectively giving a when-not scenario. This is clear and actionable.

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