Get formula range

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, and the description is consistent with a pure read. Beyond annotations it discloses the 2,000-cell cap, the range_too_large failure mode, that every cell in the rectangle is returned, that unknown sheets or malformed ranges fail the call, and that formula is null for constants/empty cells — exactly the operational limits an agent needs.

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?

Front-loaded with purpose, then format, then return shape, then limits and alternatives — a logical progression with little waste. It is dense but every clause carries information; the return-shape sentence is long but justified given there is no output schema.

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 and only two parameters, the description fully covers what an agent needs: accepted input formats, the returned object shape, the cell-count ceiling, and failure conditions. Nothing material is left to inference.

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 coverage is 100% and the schema already carries the range-format examples, so the description's 'B4', 'Sheet1!B4', 'A1:D10' examples largely repeat structured data. It adds only marginal semantics, such as the rectangle being fully enumerated, which is more behavioral than parameter-level.

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?

Opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Read the formulas and computed values of one cell or a rectangular range in a session.' It also distinguishes itself from siblings by naming get_outputs and trace_dependencies as the tools for adjacent jobs.

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?

Explicit routing guidance: 'Read a block in one call rather than cell by cell; to read values by defined name use get_outputs, and for the cells that feed one use trace_dependencies.' Both the preferred usage pattern and the alternatives are stated outright.

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