SheetsData MCP

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

Annotations already indicate this is a safe, read-only, idempotent operation with open-world data. The description adds useful context about what the tool returns (merged details, cached datasheet summaries, specs, pricing, availability, datasheet_status) and the 2-5 part limit, but does not disclose additional behavioral traits like rate limits, authentication needs, or data freshness.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by details on returns and an example. Every sentence adds value: the first defines the action and scope, the second explains the output benefits, and the third provides a concrete example. No wasted words.

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 moderate complexity (comparing multiple parts), rich annotations (covering safety and behavior), and no output schema, the description is mostly complete. It explains the purpose, output content, and usage with an example, but could better address limitations or error cases. The lack of output schema is partially compensated by describing return values.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents the single parameter 'part_numbers' with its type, constraints, and description. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by implying the parameter is used for comparison and providing an example, but no additional syntax or format 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 specific action ('compare 2-5 electronic components side by side') and resource ('electronic components'), distinguishing it from siblings like 'get_part_details' (single part) or 'find_alternative' (finding substitutes). It explicitly mentions the output includes merged details, datasheet summaries, specs, pricing, availability, and datasheet_status.

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 clear context for when to use this tool (comparing 2-5 parts side by side with merged details) and includes an example, but it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name specific alternatives among siblings like 'get_part_details' for single parts or 'find_alternative' for finding substitutes.

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