Read values

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

Annotations already mark this as read-only and idempotent, and the description adds meaningful behavioral detail: trailing empty rows/columns are omitted, fully empty ranges omit the values key, and date rendering depends on value_render_option and date_time_render_option. This goes well beyond the structured hints.

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 dense but well-organized: the core behavior and quota benefit are front-loaded, followed by return-shape details and then option semantics. Every sentence conveys a distinct, useful fact without redundancy.

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?

Even with no output schema, the description fully covers return structure, edge cases, option behavior, and quota implications. Combined with the annotations, an agent has everything needed to call this tool correctly across all documented options.

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 100%, but the description still adds significant meaning: it explains what FORMATTED_VALUE means in terms of display formatting and locale, gives a concrete formula example, and clarifies how UNFORMATTED_VALUE affects date serial numbers. This enriches all option parameters 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 states a precise verb and resource: "Reads one or more A1 ranges in a single call." It also explains the return shape (valueRanges[], 2-D arrays), which makes the tool's purpose unmistakable and clearly distinguishes it from sibling write/clear tools.

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 gives clear context about batching multiple ranges into one request to conserve quota, which helps an agent decide how to use it efficiently. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the purpose is clear enough against siblings like write_values and clear_values.

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