Describe sheet

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds no behavioral detail beyond that, such as whether it fails on missing sheets or how large workbooks are handled, so it clears the lower bar set by annotations but does not exceed it.

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 front-loaded sentence: verb, resource, then a compact comma-delimited list of what is described. No filler, no restatement of the name or title.

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 an output schema present, return values need not be explained, and the annotations carry the safety profile, so the description only needs to convey scope. It does that well; the only shortfall is the absence of any usage or failure-mode context for a two-parameter inspector.

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 the schema itself documents both parameters thoroughly, including supported file extensions and relative-path resolution. The description adds no meaning beyond the schema, which matches the baseline for full coverage.

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 ('Describe') and resource ('a sheet's structure') and enumerates the concrete facets returned: used range, frozen panes, merged ranges, tables, charts, data validation, conditional formats, column widths. The sheet-scoped framing distinguishes it from the sibling describe_workbook without needing to open either schema.

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 only implicit: enumerating structural facets signals this is a read-only inspection step, likely before a write/format operation. There is no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over describe_workbook or read_range, and no stated prerequisites.

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