sheets_get_sheet_structure

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

Annotations already show readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, and the description adds valuable behavioral context beyond that: it explicitly states 'no per-cell data', lists all types of metadata returned, and reveals implementation traits like 'single API call with minimal field mask' and 'much faster and cheaper'. No contradiction with annotations.

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 concise and well-structured: it front-loads the primary purpose, follows with a detailed list of what is returned, then closes with usage guidance and performance context. All sentences contribute meaningful information without unnecessary fluff.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (2 parameters, no output schema), the description is remarkably complete. It specifies return values, usage context, performance characteristics, and explicitly states what it does NOT return (per-cell data). This fully compensates for the absence of an output schema and covers the tool's complexity well.

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 fully described in the schema. The description does not add additional semantics for parameters, but per the rubric, the high schema coverage means the baseline is 3 and the description is not required to repeat parameter details.

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 tool's purpose: returning ONLY structural/dimensional metadata for a sheet, and it lists the specific metadata items returned. It also distinguishes itself from a sibling tool (sheets_get_full_sheet_snapshot) by explicitly noting it excludes per-cell data, making it highly specific and differentiated.

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 usage guidance: 'Use this instead of sheets_get_full_sheet_snapshot when per-cell formatting is not needed.' It also highlights performance benefits ('Much faster and cheaper'), giving the agent clear criteria for selecting this tool over an alternative.

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