Read Sheet Values

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

Annotations (readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false) already cover the safety profile, and the description is consistent with them, adding no contradiction. The description itself adds no behavioral context beyond the annotations, though the schema parameter descriptions do disclose meaningful traits (1000-row range clamping, expensive includeGridData requests for notes/hyperlinks, extra API call for formulas). With annotations carrying the safety burden, a 3 is appropriate.

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?

A single ten-word sentence that front-loads the verb and object. Every word earns its place and nothing is redundant with the schema or annotations.

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 a rich 100%-covered schema, an output schema, and safety annotations, the one-line description is sufficient to complete the picture. The only minor gap is that it does not orient the agent between this tool and get_spreadsheet_info for structural/metadata reads, but the name and schema largely compensate.

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 all six parameters with examples, defaults, and cost rationale (e.g., 'Defaults to False to avoid expensive includeGridData requests'). The description text adds no parameter meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 states a specific verb ('reads') and resource ('values from a specific range in a Google Sheet'), which clearly identifies the tool's function. It is self-evidently distinct from the closest sibling, modify_sheet_values (the write counterpart), and from get_spreadsheet_info (metadata, not cell values), even without naming them.

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 when-to-use guidance, exclusions, or named alternatives. Usage is only implied by the tool name and the presence of modify_sheet_values as an obvious write counterpart. The schema's include_formulas parameter hints at a pre-write use case ('before writing back to a range'), but the description itself carries no routing guidance.

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