Read an explicit cell range

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It adds meaningful behavioral details: 'raw values' (not formatted), and 'the range genuinely bounds what Graph transfers' (performance/scope). However, it doesn't mention potential errors, authentication requirements, or response structure, so it's not a perfect disclosure.

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 short sentences, each earning its place: purpose, use case, and a distinguishing comparison. No redundancy, and front-loaded with the primary action.

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 tool with no output schema, the description does not mention the return format, but the phrase 'raw values' gives a hint. It could be clearer about what the agent gets back, yet it covers selection and invocation well. Slight gap, but overall complete for the core use case.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by providing an explicit range example ('A1:D20') and explaining why the range is important in the context of non-standard layouts, going slightly beyond the schema's parameter descriptions.

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 uses a specific verb ('Read') and resource ('raw values for an explicit A1 range'), with a concrete example. It clearly distinguishes itself from siblings, especially get_permission_matrix, by stating the range bounds what Graph transfers.

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 explicitly states when to use the tool: 'when the sheet has a non-standard layout that the header-row model does not fit.' It also names an alternative (get_permission_matrix) and explains the key difference, providing clear selection guidance.

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