SheetsData MCP

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

The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations: it explains the 30s-2min extraction delay for first calls and subsequent caching, describes the fallback from section to search mode when a section isn't found, and clarifies that section names are dynamic based on actual datasheet headings. Annotations cover read-only and non-destructive aspects, but the description enriches operational understanding.

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 well-structured with clear headings for the two modes, uses bullet-like formatting for readability, and every sentence adds essential information (e.g., extraction timing, caching behavior, part number examples). It's front-loaded with the core purpose and efficiently organized 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?

Given the tool's complexity (5 parameters, two modes, dynamic behavior) and lack of output schema, the description does a good job covering operational aspects like modes, fallbacks, and caching. However, it doesn't detail the output format (e.g., structure of returned sections or search results), which could be helpful for an agent. Annotations provide safety context, but the description compensates well overall.

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 documents all parameters thoroughly. The description adds some semantic context, such as examples of part numbers (e.g., 'TPS54302') and section names (e.g., 'register_map'), but doesn't provide significant additional meaning beyond what the schema specifies. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 tool's purpose: 'Read from a component's datasheet' with two specific modes (section and search). It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'search_datasheets' by focusing on reading specific parts rather than searching across parts, and from 'get_part_details' by targeting datasheet content extraction.

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 each mode: section mode for named sections (starting with 'summary' to discover available sections) and search mode for targeted questions. It also specifies when NOT to use it (e.g., 'Do NOT pass bare component values'). The distinction between modes and alternatives like 'search_datasheets' is clear.

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