read_sheet_values

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states this is a read operation ('Read raw Google Sheets values'), implying it's non-destructive, but doesn't mention authentication requirements, rate limits, error handling, or what 'raw values' entails. This leaves significant gaps for a tool with 5 parameters.

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, efficient sentence that gets straight to the point with no wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a tool with this complexity and is front-loaded with the core functionality.

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 has 5 parameters with 0% schema coverage and no annotations, the description is incomplete—it doesn't address parameter meanings or behavioral details. However, the presence of an output schema means the description doesn't need to explain return values, preventing a lower score. This is the minimum viable for a read operation with structured output.

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 schema description coverage is 0%, meaning none of the 5 parameters have descriptions in the schema. The tool description adds no information about any parameters beyond implying 'range_a1' relates to 'A1 range'. It doesn't explain what 'spreadsheet_id_or_url', 'major_dimension', 'value_render_option', or 'date_time_render_option' mean or how to use them.

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 action ('Read raw Google Sheets values') and the resource ('for an A1 range'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from its sibling 'read_sheet_grid' or 'search_sheet', which likely have overlapping functionality, so it doesn't reach the highest score.

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 like 'read_sheet_grid' or 'search_sheet'. It mentions 'raw values' and 'A1 range', but this is part of the purpose statement rather than explicit usage instructions. No context or exclusions are provided.

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