read_range

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses hidden-row handling, format-marker semantics, defaults, and the fact that hidden cells referenced by formulas are retained and marked. Minor gap: it promises a truncated indicator and skipped-count reporting, but the listed return fields do not include those values.

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 well organized with a front-loaded warning, a parameter list, format-marker explanations, and a return summary. Despite its length, every section adds necessary behavioral or semantic value, and the structure makes it easy for an agent to scan.

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 7-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is unusually complete: it explains pagination, defaults, hidden-content behavior, format markers, and return fields. It is incomplete only in not listing truncated and skipped-count in the return summary and not documenting the required file_path parameter.

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 0%, and the description compensates by explaining sheet, cell_range, offset/limit, include_format, and include_hidden, including defaults and examples such as 'A1:D50'. It omits file_path, which is the only required parameter, leaving a small but notable gap.

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 it reads worksheet data with pagination, format semantics, and hidden-content handling, and the parameter list confirms the exact resource and scope. It is unambiguous from the name and siblings, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling read-like tools such as sheet_profile or workbook_info.

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 practical guidance: do not read large tables in one call, use limit/offset, and rely on the truncated indicator to detect remaining rows. It does not explicitly name alternatives or say when to choose another sibling tool, so it stops short of a 5.

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