sheets_get_sheet_formatting

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, so the safety profile is known. The description adds value by disclosing the return shape (2D array) and the distinction between effective and user-entered format, which are behavioral details not present in annotations.

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 tightly worded sentences. The first sentence front-loads the purpose and lists attributes, the second explains the return array and a key parameter tip. No filler or redundancy.

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-only formatting getter with good annotations and a simple parameter set, the description sufficiently covers the return format and the effective-format option. It could mention edge cases like empty cells, but given the tool's scope, the description is complete enough.

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?

The input schema fully documents all three parameters (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The description adds a list of formatting attributes and return behavior, but this is more about output than parameter syntax or semantics, so it does not significantly elevate the score.

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 the specific verb 'Read' and clearly identifies the resource as 'cell formatting for a range,' listing attributes like background color, font, and alignment. This distinguishes it from siblings like sheets_get_values (which reads values) and sheets_get_formatting_compact (which likely returns a compact view).

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 conveys clear context for when to use the tool (when formatting is needed) and gives a specific guideline for the useEffectiveFormat parameter. It does not explicitly compare to alternative tools, but the purpose is unambiguous enough to guide selection.

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