read_spreadsheet

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description usefully adds the shape of the result (sheet names, dimensions, row preview), which matters since there is no output schema, but says nothing about pagination, limits, or failure modes.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the action, with no filler. Every clause (sheets, dimensions, row preview) carries information.

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, read-only two-parameter tool with full annotation coverage and 100% schema description coverage, the description is nearly sufficient, and it compensates for the missing output schema by naming what is returned. It stops short of explaining limits or whether all sheets are always listed.

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 100% and both parameters are documented in the schema (including the max-50 bound on preview_rows). The description's phrase 'preview of the first rows' gestures at preview_rows but adds no syntax or default information beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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: 'Open a spreadsheet and list its sheets with dimensions and a preview of the first rows.' This clearly conveys a metadata-plus-preview read, distinct from data-reading siblings like get_sheet_data. However, it does not explicitly name any sibling, so differentiation is inferred rather than stated.

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?

Usage is implied (inspect sheets and preview before pulling full data), but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative (e.g. get_sheet_data) named. The agent must infer the routing decision from the purpose alone.

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