mcp-gsheets

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While it implies a read operation ('Get values'), it doesn't address important behavioral aspects like authentication requirements, rate limits, error handling, response format, or whether this operation is idempotent. The description is minimal and leaves critical behavioral questions unanswered.

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?

The description is a single, focused sentence that efficiently communicates the core functionality without any wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a straightforward data retrieval operation and gets directly to the point.

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 tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't explain what the return values look like, how errors are handled, or provide any context about the operation's scope and limitations. Given the complexity of batch operations and the lack of structured metadata, the description should do more to guide effective use.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the input schema already documents all parameters thoroughly. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema - it doesn't explain parameter interactions, default behaviors, or provide usage examples. The baseline score of 3 reflects adequate but minimal value addition.

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 clearly states the verb ('Get values') and resource ('from multiple ranges in a Google Sheets spreadsheet'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from its sibling 'sheets_get_values' (which presumably gets values from a single range), missing an opportunity for full sibling distinction.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'sheets_get_values' or 'sheets_batch_update_values'. It lacks context about prerequisites, performance considerations, or specific use cases for batch retrieval versus single-range operations.

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