Read range

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the safety bar is lower, yet the description adds real value: dates are ISO 8601, the truncation/next_range paging contract, and an explicit prompt-injection warning for untrusted cell contents. It does not describe error behavior, but the added traits go beyond the 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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and return format, followed by paging and safety notes. Every sentence earns its place with no 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?

With a full schema and an output schema present, the description need not explain return values; it correctly focuses on date formatting, paging, and untrusted-content safety. Adequate and complete for calling the tool correctly, missing only explicit routing against sibling readers.

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%, so all five parameters including mode, range, max_cells and their defaults are documented in the schema. The description references truncated and next_range (output fields) but adds no syntax or meaning beyond what the schema supplies; baseline 3 applies.

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) and resource (cell values as rows), clearly marking this as the read counterpart to write_range. It does not explicitly name or contrast itself with any sibling tool, but the purpose is unambiguous.

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?

Provides a concrete usage pattern for pagination (re-call with next_range when truncated is true), which is genuinely helpful. However, it gives no guidance on when to choose read_range over find_cells or other read-style siblings, nor any prerequisites.

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