sheets_compare_ranges

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

With no annotations provided, the description clearly explains that the tool is a read operation, returns a diff of differing cells, requires identical dimensions, and describes parameters like 'useEffectiveFormat'. It could detail the output structure more.

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 concise (four sentences), front-loaded with the main purpose, and each sentence adds necessary context. No redundant or vague statements.

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 no output schema, the description mentions it returns a 'diff listing only the cells and properties that differ.' This is adequate but lacks detail on the structure of the diff. The tool's complexity is moderate, so it's mostly complete.

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 explaining the purpose of 'fields' (restrict comparison) and 'useEffectiveFormat' (compare effective vs userEntered format), and gives example range formats.

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 tool's purpose: 'Compare cell formatting between two ranges of identical dimensions.' It provides specific examples like 'do all data rows 6–85 have identical formatting?' which distinguishes it from sibling tools that manipulate formatting rather than compare.

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 gives concrete use cases ('verifying repeated patterns') and advises on using 'fields' to restrict comparison. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or mention alternatives, missing some guidance.

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