gsheets_read

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

No annotations are present, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It does mention the native-only constraint and flexible range selection, but it omits details like return format, pagination, error handling, or confirmation that this is a read-only operation. The disclosure is partial, not rich.

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?

Two sentences with front-loaded purpose and a clear alternative. Every clause earns its place, and the wording is tight with no redundancy.

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 simple 3-parameter tool with 100% schema coverage and no output schema, the description provides enough context for selection and basic usage: scoping constraints, range flexibility, and alternative for non-native files. The lack of return format details is a minor gap but does not undermine completeness for this straightforward read tool.

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 covers all parameters with detailed descriptions, so the schema carries the parameter documentation burden. The description adds little beyond restating 'flexible range selection' and mentioning 'formatting options' which do not map to a schema property. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 action ('Read data from Google Sheets') and the specific resource (native Google Sheets documents). It distinguishes itself from siblings by explicitly excluding Excel/CSV files and pointing to gdrive_read_file, making the tool's purpose unambiguous.

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?

Provides explicit when-to-use guidance: 'native Google Sheets only, not Excel/CSV files uploaded to Drive' and names the alternative tool for Excel files ('use gdrive_read_file instead'). This is clear and actionable for tool selection.

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