Read cells

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, and the description is fully consistent with them. Beyond that, it discloses two genuinely useful behaviors: values may be stale ('a formula whose inputs changed outside Excel shows its old result') and a hard call limit ('At most 20,000 cells per call'). These add real context the annotations and schema do not provide.

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?

Three sentences, all of which earn their place: core operation, the subtle values-versus-formulas behavior, and the cell cap. The most important information is front-loaded, and there is zero filler or repetition of schema content.

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 read-only tool with full annotations, a 100%-covered schema, and an output schema describing return values, the description covers everything an agent needs to invoke it correctly: what it returns, the key behavioral nuance (staleness), and the practical size limit. No critical gap remains.

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 baseline is 3. The description elevates this by adding meaning to the include parameter (explaining the semantic difference between values and formulas and when each is appropriate) and to cell_range (the 20,000-cell cap). It does not add detail for file_path, sheet, or timeout, but those are already well documented in 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 opens with a specific verb and resource — 'Reads a range of cells from a worksheet and returns a grid of values, formulas, or both' — which states exactly what the tool does. It is clearly distinguished from siblings like xlide_write_cells (opposite operation) and xlide_read_module/xlide_read_form/xlide_read_query (different resources), and the values-vs-formulas distinction adds precision beyond the title.

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 explicit selection guidance for the include parameter: 'Ask for formulas when you need to understand what a sheet computes, and values when you need what it currently shows.' This is clear, decision-relevant context. However, it does not name alternative tools or state when not to use this tool versus a sibling such as xlide_write_cells or xlide_list_sheets, so it stops short of full exclusion guidance.

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