Read spreadsheet range

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses the return format ('rows of strings'), which is useful, but does not mention error handling, permissions, or whether values are formulas or rendered. The read-only nature is implied by the name and 'read' verb.

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 a single, focused sentence that front-loads the key information and avoids any unnecessary words. It is highly concise and clearly structured.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity and the rich input schema, the description is nearly complete. It states the output format and the schema details all parameters. However, the absence of usage guidelines or differentiation from similar tools prevents a perfect score.

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 input schema fully documents all four parameters, providing 100% coverage. The description does not add parameter-level detail beyond the generic reference to 'range', so it meets the baseline for full 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 clearly states the tool reads cell values from a range and returns them as rows of strings. This distinguishes it from write/append tools, though it does not explicitly contrast with google_sheets_get.

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?

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as google_sheets_get or other read tools. The description simply states what it does, leaving the agent to infer the correct usage context.

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