Get Spreadsheet Info

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds some behavioral context by noting that the response includes sheets, but it does not disclose additional details like error conditions, permission requirements, or the exact format of returned information beyond what the output schema already provides.

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 a single, focused sentence that immediately states what the tool does and what result to expect. There is no redundancy, filler, or repetition of schema details, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 simplicity, the presence of a rich output schema, and annotations covering safety behavior, the description is largely sufficient. It clearly identifies the tool's purpose and key output characteristic ('including its sheets'). The only minor gap is not elaborating on the format of the spreadsheet_id (e.g., URL vs. raw ID), but this is likely covered elsewhere or by the schema.

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%, with both parameters (spreadsheet_id and user_google_email) already well-documented in the input schema. The description adds no additional parameter-level meaning, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 uses a specific verb ('Gets') with a clear resource ('information about a specific spreadsheet') and explicitly scopes the result ('including its sheets'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like list_spreadsheets (which lists spreadsheets) and read_sheet_values (which reads cell values), making its function immediately clear.

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 conveys that this is for retrieving metadata about a specific spreadsheet, which implies usage when a spreadsheet_id is known and high-level structure/sheet info is needed. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it, nor does it name alternatives such as list_spreadsheets or read_sheet_values for different needs.

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