find_free_canvas

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already signals a safe read operation, but the description adds no extra behavioral context—such as what constitutes a 'free' slot, how existing content is considered, or whether the search is bounded by sheet dimensions. It does not contradict the annotation, but it fails to disclose meaningful operational details.

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 single sentence is concise and front-loaded, but it is also under-specifying. While brevity is positive, the structure omits essential information that should accompany a tool with complex parameters, making it more of a vague headline than an effective description.

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?

This tool has 12 parameters, no output schema, and no parameter documentation. The description provides only a high-level summary, leaving the agent without enough context to correctly invoke the tool or interpret results. It is far from complete for a tool of this complexity.

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 input schema has 12 parameters with 0% coverage by the description. The description mentions none of them, leaving the agent to guess the meaning of origin_cell, search_rows, padding_columns, etc. Given the high parameter count and lack of schema descriptions, this is a critical gap.

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 states a clear verb ('Suggest') and resource ('free worksheet slots for charts or dashboard blocks'), giving a specific purpose. It doesn't explicitly distinguish from sibling tools, but the function is unique enough that the core intent is clear.

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 describe_sheet_layout or suggest_read_strategy. There is no mention of typical scenarios, prerequisites, or situations where another tool would be more appropriate.

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