generate_spreadsheet

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

readOnlyHint=true already establishes the safe-read profile, so the bar is lower; the description still adds real behavioral context by disclosing the conditional rendering rule (rows/values present -> pivot table, absent -> regular table). It stays silent on where the artifact is rendered or whether it is interactive/exportable.

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?

Three short sentences, zero filler, and the most decision-relevant fact (what makes it a pivot table) is placed immediately after the purpose statement.

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?

With no output schema, the description should carry the return story, and it does convey the two render modes for a 7-parameter tool whose parameters are all schema-documented. It omits what the caller receives back (rendered component vs. data) and any environment/interaction caveats.

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%, and the schema itself already documents the pivot trigger on both 'rows' and 'values', which the description merely restates. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the description adds no semantics (formats, units, ordering rules) beyond the schema.

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 names a specific verb ('Generate') and resource ('spreadsheet or pivot table'), and additionally draws the internal distinction that rows/values switches the rendering to a cross-tabulation. It is naturally distinguishable from the 25 chart/map siblings, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with any of them.

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?

It offers implied usage ('displaying structured data, comparing values across categories, creating data summaries') but gives no when-to-use versus alternatives guidance. With 25 sibling chart generators, the description never says when a table beats a bar chart or column chart, or when a pivot is preferable to a plain table.

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