describe_spreadsheet

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

The description explains what the tool returns (dimensions, headers, sample rows, tables/charts) and implies it is a read-only operation by stating it 'returns' data. No annotations are provided, but the description itself adequately conveys the non-destructive nature. No contradictions.

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 at two sentences. The first sentence gives a high-level summary, and the second provides specific return details and usage context. No extraneous information.

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 lack of an output schema, the description adequately describes the return data (per sheet: dimensions, frozen rows/cols, column headers with inferred types, sample rows, tables/charts). It also provides usage context ('Use this first'). For a tool with three parameters, the description is fairly complete, though more detail on optional parameters would improve completeness.

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?

The description adds meaning for the required 'spreadsheet' parameter by stating it accepts 'a spreadsheet ID or a full Google Sheets URL'. However, the optional parameters 'sheets' and 'sample_rows' are not explained in detail; only the default for 'sample_rows' is implied ('5'). With 0% schema description coverage, more parameter documentation would be expected.

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 returns a snapshot of spreadsheet structure (dimensions, frozen rows/cols, column headers with inferred types, sample rows, tables/charts). It uses specific verbs ('returns', 'accepted') and resources. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling tool 'get_spreadsheet_info', which might have overlapping functionality.

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 'Use this first to ground natural requests like "the Revenue column" before calling other tools.' This provides clear guidance on when to use it (as an initial step). It does not, however, mention when not to use it or provide alternatives.

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