get_summary_stats

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine value by naming the exact metrics returned per column type, which matters since there is no output schema, but it says nothing about how missing/blank values are treated or how non-numeric columns are skipped.

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 dense sentence that front-loads the resource ('per column') and then enumerates output metrics without filler. Efficient, though the numeric/text split is packed into one long 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?

With no output schema and no annotations describing results, the description carries the return-value burden and does so well by enumerating every statistic per column type. The remaining gap is edge-case behavior (empty sheets, all-text columns, missing handling), which is minor for this tool.

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 path, sheet, columns, and header_row are already documented in the schema (including defaults). The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond that, making the baseline 3 correct.

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 specific verb ('Summary statistics') and resource ('per column'), and enumerates exactly which statistics are produced for numeric vs text columns. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings like get_sheet_data or get_formulas, so an agent must infer the boundary, but the purpose itself is unambiguous.

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 mention of alternatives such as get_sheet_data for raw values, and no prerequisites or caveats. The agent can infer this is the stats tool, but nothing routes it here over the sibling tools.

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