apple_numbers_read_range

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

Annotations already declare the read-only, idempotent, non-destructive safety profile, so the bar is lower. The description still adds real behavioral context not present in annotations: a 200-cell ceiling on the combined range and 500-character truncation per field, both of which affect how the caller sizes requests and interprets results.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with what is read and in what coordinate system, followed by limits. No filler and every clause carries information an agent needs.

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 correctly specifies the returned shape (values, formatted text, formulas) plus size limits, which is the essential return-value information. It omits error/edge behavior (e.g. out-of-range indexes, missing sheets) and any precondition that the target document be open, leaving a small gap.

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 only 14% (just documentName), so the description must carry parameter meaning. It supplies the crucial 1-based row/column indexing convention absent from the schema and the 200-cell cap, but does not clarify startRow/startColumn/rows/columns individually or their coupling as a rectangle. Partial compensation, so a 3.

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 (read) plus the resource (a rectangular Numbers range) and enumerates what is returned: values, formatted text and formulas. Although it does not name a sibling, the read semantics cleanly contrast with apple_numbers_write_range, so an agent can route without opening another schema.

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?

Usage is only implied: read data from a range. There is no explicit when-to-use statement, no exclusion (e.g. use apple_numbers_list_tables to discover table names first, or write_range to modify), and no mention that the document must be open. Adequate but with clear gaps.

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