get_range_values

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden but only states it retrieves data. It doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as read-only nature (implied but not stated), error handling, performance, or output format. For a tool with 3 parameters and no annotations, this is a significant gap.

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 in Japanese with no wasted words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, though it could be more informative. Every sentence earns its place, but it's under-specified rather than concise.

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 3 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain the Excel context, return values, or error conditions. For a data retrieval tool in a sibling-rich environment, more context is needed to be fully helpful.

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 100%, so the schema fully documents parameters (filePath, range, sheetName). The description adds no meaning beyond what the schema provides, as it doesn't explain parameter interactions or usage examples. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.

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 '指定された範囲のデータを取得します' (Retrieves data from a specified range) states the basic purpose with a verb (取得/retrieves) and resource (データ/data), but it's vague about the context (Excel files) and doesn't distinguish from siblings like get_cell_value or find_data. It's adequate but lacks specificity.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention Excel context, prerequisites, or compare to siblings like get_cell_value (single cell) or find_data (search-based). Usage is implied but not explicit.

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