get_formulas

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), so the description only needs incremental value — and it delivers by disclosing the return shape (formulas plus each cell's last cached result) and a format restriction, which is important since there is no output schema.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and immediately followed by the format constraint. No filler words and nothing redundant with the 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, the description compensates by explaining what is returned (formulas, not values, plus cached results) and which file types are supported. It is complete enough to call safely, with only minor gaps around range defaults that the schema already covers.

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%, and the schema already documents path, sheet (defaults to first sheet) and cell_range (e.g. 'A1:D20', defaults to whole sheet). The description's 'in a range' merely echoes cell_range, adding no syntax or default detail 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?

States a specific verb (List) and resource (formulas) with scope (in a range), and explicitly disambiguates from value-reading siblings by saying '(not values)'. It does not name read_spreadsheet or get_sheet_data directly, but the formula-vs-value distinction is enough for an agent to route correctly.

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?

Gives a clear scope condition ('in a range') and a hard exclusion ('.xlsx/.xlsm only'), which tells the agent when this tool is not applicable. It stops short of naming the alternative tool to use for values or for unsupported formats.

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