Read cells

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavioral context that annotations do not carry: large ranges are truncated, and a continuation mechanism (next_range) exists. This truncation/continuation detail is the key value-add.

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?

Two tight sentences with no wasted words. The primary purpose is front-loaded and the truncation/continuation caveat follows immediately.

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?

With no output schema, the description does mention the truncation return behavior, and readOnly annotations plus a rich mode enum cover much of the rest. It is largely complete for a read tool, though it could say more about the returned structure or clarify the overlap with 'read_ranges'.

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 80%, and the schema already fully documents the 'mode' enum values. The description only restates the existence of a 'formats' mode rather than adding syntax or semantics beyond what the schema provides, 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 gives a specific verb and resource ('Read cell contents from a range') and calls out the 'formats' mode, so the core operation is unambiguous. However, it does not distinguish this tool from the very similar sibling 'read_ranges', leaving an agent to guess which of the two to invoke.

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 implies when to use the 'formats' mode versus the default and explains what to do when a range is truncated ('use next_range to continue'). But there is no explicit routing guidance against the competing 'read_ranges' tool, and 'next_range' is not among the listed siblings, so the continuation advice is only partially actionable.

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