read_range

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden but delivers only parameter documentation. It says nothing about auth requirements, rate limits, empty-cell handling, or how values are typed in the response, all of which matter for a spreadsheet read.

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?

Front-loaded one-line purpose followed by a compact Args block. Every line earns its place; only the format could be tidied, since the parameter docs live in the description rather than the schema.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values needn't be explained, and both params are covered. However, with zero annotation coverage the description omits any behavioral context (permissions, failure modes), leaving the definition minimally viable rather than complete.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does: spreadsheet_id is explained as 'the long token from the spreadsheet URL' and a1_range is illustrated with three concrete A1 examples ('Sheet1', 'Sheet1!A1:D50', 'Sheet1!A:A'). This is helpful beyond the bare schema types.

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 clear verb+resource: 'Read a raw grid of cells from a spreadsheet.' The word 'raw' implicitly distinguishes it from read_records, but no sibling is named explicitly, so it stops short of 5.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no alternative tool is named. The contrast between 'raw grid' and structured siblings like read_records or find_rows is only implied, leaving the agent to infer selection.

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