sheets_get_data_validation

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the read-only nature, return format (run-length encoded), and types of rules detected. However, it does not mention authentication or rate limits, but the simplicity of the tool mitigates this gap.

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 two sentences: the first clearly states the action and object, the second provides return format and examples. No unnecessary words, front-loaded, and efficient.

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?

The description explains the return format and lists rule types, compensating for the missing output schema. However, it does not specify behavior when no rules exist or how to interpret the compact list structure in full detail.

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% with basic descriptions. The description adds semantic value for the 'range' parameter by specifying it should be without sheet prefix and that omission inspects the entire sheet. This clarifies usage beyond the schema.

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 it reads data validation rules (checkboxes, dropdowns, etc.) and mentions the return format (compact list grouped by cell ranges). This distinguishes it from sibling tools that handle values, formatting, or conditional formatting.

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 implies usefulness for discovering validation rules but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or provide exclusion criteria. Some guidance on when not to use it is missing.

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