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 idempotency. The description adds valuable context about the scope limitation ('Only searches datasheets that have been previously extracted'), which isn't captured in annotations, enhancing behavioral understanding without contradiction.

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 limitations in three efficient sentences. Every sentence adds critical information without redundancy, making it highly concise and well-structured for quick comprehension.

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 (semantic search with three parameters), rich annotations (covering safety and idempotency), and 100% schema coverage, the description provides complete context. It clarifies scope, usage, and alternatives, compensating for the lack of output schema by setting clear expectations.

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 all three parameters. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific details beyond what's in the schema, such as query examples or section_type usage. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage without 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 tool performs semantic search across extracted datasheets using natural language queries about specifications, features, or capabilities. It specifically distinguishes this from sibling tool search_parts, which is for finding parts by number, establishing clear differentiation.

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 ('Best for broad spec-based discovery across all parts') and when not to ('Only searches datasheets that have been previously extracted — not all parts that exist'). It also names a specific alternative ('For finding specific parts by number, use search_parts instead'), providing clear guidance on tool selection.

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