sheets_values_get

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While 'Read values' correctly indicates a non-destructive operation, it lacks crucial behavioral details: no mention of authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, pagination, or what happens with invalid ranges. For a tool with 4 parameters and no output schema, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how the tool behaves.

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 extremely concise at just 6 words, front-loading the core purpose with zero wasted language. Every word earns its place by communicating the essential action and target. This is an excellent example of efficient communication for a straightforward tool.

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 4 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't address what the tool returns (values format, structure), error handling, authentication needs, or performance characteristics. For a data retrieval tool with multiple configuration options, users need more context about what to expect from the operation.

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 already documents all parameters thoroughly. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema - it doesn't explain relationships between parameters, provide examples beyond the basic concept, or clarify edge cases. This meets the baseline expectation when schema coverage is complete.

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 clearly states the action ('Read values') and resource ('from a spreadsheet range'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like sheets_values_append and sheets_values_update by specifying 'Read' rather than write operations. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sheets_get, which might also retrieve spreadsheet data.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention when to choose sheets_values_get over sheets_get (which might retrieve metadata rather than values) or when to use it versus other data retrieval tools in the sibling list. There's no context about prerequisites, limitations, or appropriate scenarios.

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