get_sheet_summary

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true and the description explicitly states 'Read-only', so there is no contradiction. The description adds a useful list of output contents, but it does not disclose further behavioral details such as error behavior, header-detection heuristics, or file-path restrictions.

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 compact and front-loaded with a one-sentence purpose. The Args/Returns/Notes structure is clean and each sentence contributes necessary information, with no filler or redundant detail.

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 low complexity, presence of an output schema, and a read-only annotation, the description is complete enough for an agent to understand what the tool does and what arguments it needs. It fully specifies the two required parameters and the general nature of the return value, so no critical information is missing.

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?

Because the input schema has 0% description coverage, the description carries the full burden for parameter semantics. The Args section clearly maps file_path to 'Workbook path' and sheet_name to 'Worksheet to summarise', adding meaning beyond the bare field names. This is sufficient for the simple two-parameter interface.

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 opens with a specific verb ('Return') and a clear resource ('a sheet'), enumerating the exact summary elements: header row, used range, row/column counts, and detected headers. This makes the tool's function clear and generally distinct from metadata tools like get_workbook_metadata, though it does not explicitly name sibling tools.

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 such as profile_data, get_workbook_metadata, or column_statistics. There are no exclusions, prerequisites, or context cues beyond the tool's intrinsic purpose, so the agent receives minimal selection support.

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