sheets_get_metadata

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

The description implies a read-only operation via the verb 'Get', but does not explicitly state that it is non-destructive or safe. With no annotations, the description could be more transparent about what happens (e.g., no side effects, permissions needed). The lack of behavioral details is adequate but not excellent.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word adds value, conveying purpose and expected output efficiently.

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 tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is fairly complete. It states what is returned. However, it could be improved by noting that no write operations occur or by mentioning the response format (though not strictly required).

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?

The parameter 'spreadsheetId' is fully described in the schema (including where to find it). The description adds value by hinting at the output content ('sheet names, IDs, and properties'), which helps the agent understand what the tool returns, exceeding what the schema provides.

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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and clearly identifies the resource ('metadata about a Google Sheets spreadsheet'). It lists example contents ('sheet names, IDs, and properties'), making the purpose unambiguous and differentiating it from more specific tool 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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'sheets_get_sheet_structure' or 'sheets_get_values'. There are no hints about prerequisites or common use cases.

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