get_used_range

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states that the tool gets the used range; it does not describe what the returned data looks like, whether it returns coordinates, whether empty worksheets return null, or whether the worksheet parameter selects a specific sheet. This is minimal behavioral information.

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, direct sentence with no filler. It is front-loaded and easy to parse. It is slightly under-specified, but as a concise statement of purpose it is effective and appropriately short for a simple 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?

The tool has no output schema and no annotations, so the description is the only source of contextual information. It does not explain the return value, error behavior, or interaction with the worksheet parameter. Given the simplicity of the tool, a short sentence may be acceptable, but the absence of any output or behavior details leaves meaningful gaps for an agent deciding how to use the result.

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 has no property descriptions and schema description coverage is 0%. The tool description does not explain what file_id is or how the worksheet parameter is interpreted (e.g., whether it defaults to the active sheet). While the parameter names are somewhat self-explanatory, the description provides no additional semantic context beyond the bare schema.

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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and a clear resource ('used (data) range of a worksheet'). It states exactly what the operation returns, and the tool name aligns with the description. However, it does not explicitly distinguish this from sibling tools like read_range, though the 'used range' concept is distinct enough.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as read_range or list_worksheets. No context is given about typical use cases, prerequisites, or situations where another tool would be more appropriate. The agent is left to infer usage entirely from the name and description.

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