SheetsData MCP

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

The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations: it specifies the tool is 'Free' (implying no cost/rate limits), describes the polling nature ('use this to poll progress'), and details the return format (status values, step, time, document ID). Annotations cover safety (readOnly, non-destructive, idempotent) and openness, but the description enriches this with practical usage information.

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 efficiently structured in two sentences: the first explains the tool's function and return values, the second provides usage context. Every element (status values, polling purpose, sibling references) serves a clear purpose without redundancy.

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 read-only status-checking tool with comprehensive annotations and full schema coverage, the description provides strong contextual completeness. It explains the return format (though no output schema exists), usage timing, and cost implications. The main gap is lack of explicit error handling or rate limit details, but annotations cover idempotency and openness.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the input schema already fully documents the single parameter (part_numbers array with size limits). The description doesn't add any parameter-specific semantics beyond what's in the schema, so it meets the baseline but doesn't provide extra value.

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 specific action ('Check the extraction status') and resource ('of one or more parts'), distinguishing it from siblings like prefetch_datasheets (which initiates extraction) and read_datasheet (which retrieves extracted data). It explicitly defines the tool's scope as monitoring extraction progress.

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 guidance on when to use this tool ('to poll progress after prefetch_datasheets or read_datasheet'), indicating it's for monitoring rather than initiating extraction. It distinguishes from alternatives by mentioning specific sibling tools, though it doesn't explicitly state when not to use it.

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