navi_sheets_reader

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosure. It goes beyond basic reading by disclosing the payment requirement ($0.003 USDC per call), how private documents are handled, and the output structure (typed columns, rows, pagination, optional formatting). This is helpful behavioral context, though it omits potential error or rate-limit behavior.

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?

The description is concise, two sentences, with the main function front-loaded. It efficiently includes the URL/ID input, output features, access requirements, and pricing without any fluff or repetition. Every sentence adds to the understanding of the tool.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description appropriately explains the return values (columns, rows, pagination, optional formatting). It also covers access requirements and payment behavior. Given the moderate complexity of a spreadsheet reader with 5 parameters and no output schema, this description is sufficiently complete, though it could hint at error behavior or the scope of supported spreadsheet types.

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 schema already covers all 5 parameters with clear descriptions (100% coverage). The description adds a few semantic hints – 'paste the document URL or ID' for the url parameter and 'per-cell formatting' for the include_formatting flag – but overall it largely reinforces what the schema states. This aligns with the baseline 3 for high schema coverage.

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 opens with 'Reads any shared online spreadsheet as typed JSON' – a specific verb, resource, and output format. It clearly distinguishes this tool from its siblings, none of which mention spreadsheet reading, and provides the core functionality in a single read.

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?

It provides clear usage context: paste the URL or ID, works with view-only share links, and explains what happens for private documents ('get clear setup instructions before any payment'). It does not explicitly name alternative tools or state 'when not to use', but the context is strong enough for an agent to decide when this tool is appropriate.

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