SheetsData MCP

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering safety and behavior. The description adds useful context beyond this: it explains the search scope ('across providers'), criteria ('similar specs, same package, or compatible pinout'), and includes an example that clarifies practical application. No contradiction with annotations.

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 usage guidelines and a concrete example. Every sentence earns its place: the first defines the tool, the second explains when to use it, and the third provides an illustrative 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 (3 parameters, 1 required), rich annotations (covering safety and behavior), and 100% schema coverage, the description is mostly complete. It lacks output schema, so return values aren't explained, but the annotations and example provide enough context for an agent to use it effectively. Minor gap in not detailing output format.

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 parameters. The description adds minimal param semantics: it mentions 'constraints' in the example but doesn't explain them beyond what's in the schema. This meets the baseline of 3 for high schema coverage without significant added 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 verb 'find' and resource 'alternative/substitute components for a given part number', specifying it searches across providers for parts with similar specs, same package, or compatible pinout. It distinguishes from siblings like 'compare_parts' or 'search_parts' by focusing on alternatives for a specific part rather than general searching or comparison.

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 explicitly states when to use this tool: 'Useful when a part is out of stock, too expensive, or you need a second source.' This provides clear context for usage scenarios. It doesn't mention alternatives, but the sibling tools are distinct enough (e.g., 'search_parts' is general searching, 'compare_parts' is direct comparison) that explicit exclusion isn't needed.

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