sheets_get_tables

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, covering the safety profile. The description adds no behavioral context beyond the action itself, such as what constitutes a 'native table', whether it returns table metadata, or how it handles sheets without tables.

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?

A single sentence that is front-loaded and free of filler. It earns its place by defining the tool's scope and purpose efficiently.

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 simple read-only tool with two well-documented parameters and readOnly annotations, the description is adequate but leaves ambiguity around the term 'native Google Sheets tables' and does not clarify what output to expect. More detail on the object being read would improve completeness.

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%, with both spreadsheetId and sheetName fully described in the schema. The description loosely references these parameters ('for a spreadsheet or a specific sheet') but adds no additional meaning beyond that.

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 action ('Read') and the resource ('native Google Sheets tables') with a scoping phrase ('for a spreadsheet or a specific sheet'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like sheets_get_values (reads cell values) and sheets_get_sheet_structure (reads sheet layout).

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention cases where other tools (e.g., sheets_get_values or sheets_get_sheet_structure) would be more appropriate, and no exclusions are provided.

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