sheets_getRange

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

The description is consistent with the readOnlyHint annotation, which already indicates a safe read operation. However, it adds no additional behavioral context such as return format, handling of empty cells, or API rate limits. Given the annotation coverage, this is acceptable but not enhanced.

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, concise sentence that immediately communicates the tool's function. It contains no extraneous words or redundant information, making it highly efficient 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?

For a simple read tool with well-documented parameters and a readOnlyHint annotation, the description is adequate but not fully complete. It does not mention the format of the returned values (e.g., array of arrays) or any limitations, which could be valuable given no output schema is present. However, the core functionality is clear.

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 input schema already provides complete descriptions for both parameters (spreadsheetId and range), achieving 100% schema coverage. The tool description does not add further semantic meaning beyond what the schema already specifies, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 the tool's action ('Gets values') and resource ('specific range in a spreadsheet'), making its purpose unambiguous. It implicitly distinguishes itself from siblings like sheets_getText by focusing on values from a specific range, though it does not explicitly name alternatives.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as sheets_getText or sheets_find. It lacks any mention of use cases, prerequisites, or situations where another tool would be more appropriate.

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