get_cells

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the description builds on that by adding key behaviors: returns only non-empty cells, includes A1 ref, value, and formula, and enforces a 500-cell per call limit. This is useful beyond the annotations, though it doesn't cover edge cases like error handling or empty 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?

Three sentences, each earning its place: what the tool does, what it returns and how to use it, and the operational limit. No filler or repetition.

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 tool with no output schema, the description adequately explains the return shape (non-empty cells with A1 ref, value, formula) and the 500-cell cap. It could mention behavior for out-of-range indices or fully empty ranges, but these are minor gaps.

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 each parameter already described as zero-based and inclusive. The description reiterates the parameter order but adds no new meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 for high schema coverage 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?

The description clearly states the tool reads values and formulas in a rectangular cell range, with a specific verb ('Read') and resource ('rectangular range of cells'). It also distinguishes itself from the sibling eval_formula by noting that for a single computed result you'd use that tool instead.

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?

Explicitly says 'Use this for ordinary "what is in these cells" questions' and directs to eval_formula for a single computed result. This provides clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance with a named alternative.

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