get_spreadsheet_info

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool returns a formatted string with title, locale, and sheets list, which is useful. However, it does not explicitly state that this is a read-only operation, mention potential errors (e.g., inaccessible spreadsheet), or describe any side effects, leaving some ambiguity.

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 extremely concise and well-structured with separate Args and Returns sections. Every sentence adds value—no fluff or redundancy. It is appropriately sized for a two-parameter tool.

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 simple read-oriented tool with two parameters, the description is largely complete. It specifies the parameters, return format, and content. The lack of explicit error handling or alternative tool references is a minor gap, but the presence of an output schema and the straightforward nature of the operation make it sufficient.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It clearly explains both parameters: user_google_email is the user's Google email and spreadsheet_id is the ID of the spreadsheet, marking both as required. This adds meaningful context beyond the bare schema and satisfies the need for parameter clarity.

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 it 'Gets information about a specific spreadsheet including its sheets,' which specifies a concrete action and resource. It implicitly distinguishes from sibling tools like list_spreadsheets by focusing on a single spreadsheet, but does not explicitly name alternatives, preventing a 5.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like list_spreadsheets or read_sheet_values. The description only states what the tool does, without any contextual hints or exclusions. This makes it hard for an agent to decide between this and similar spreadsheet tools.

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