Filter, group and sort rows

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

Annotations are present but sparse, and the description adds workflow-level behavior (everything in one call, no need to read rows and aggregate manually). However it says nothing about side effects, output size/pagination beyond the schema's limit default, or cost, and it does not resolve the surprising readOnlyHint=false/idempotentHint=false flags for what is functionally a query operation.

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?

Two sentences, zero filler. The first sentence is front-loaded with the routing instruction (when to use this tool and which tools to avoid), and the second packs the operation set plus a do-not-workaround rule. Every clause earns its place.

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 9 parameters including nested objects and no output schema, the description covers selection/routing well but is silent on return shape, pagination behavior at the 100-row default, and error/edge cases (missing sheet, bad column). Given the annotations carry some safety signal, it is adequate but not complete for a parameter-heavy tool.

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 78% and the schema already carries rich per-parameter detail (where-clause syntax example, group_by examples, aggregate alias semantics, limit default). The description restates the capabilities at a high level but adds no syntax or interaction detail (e.g. how select interacts with group_by) beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 concrete capability set — filter, group, aggregate, sort — over a concrete resource (any spreadsheet or CSV file path), and the title reinforces the row-level scope. It also implicitly separates itself from the generic row reader via 'never hand sums over sheet_read rows', so an agent can identify the right tool without opening schemas.

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 gives explicit positive and negative routing: call this for any spreadsheet/CSV path, do NOT use the built-in file readers because they cannot parse spreadsheets, and do the aggregation here rather than summing sheet_read rows. Both the when-to-use and the when-not-to-use cases are stated with the alternative named.

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