sheets_read_values

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses output ordering and trimming ('valueRanges in requested order, with trailing empty rows/columns omitted'), but says nothing about read-only safety, permission/scope requirements, or quota behavior for a read tool.

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?

Three tight sentences: purpose and scope first, then return behavior, then the most consequential parameter choice. Every clause carries information and nothing is repeated from 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?

With no output schema, the description appropriately describes the return value ('valueRanges in requested order' with trimming). The remaining parameters (major_dimension, date_time_render_option) are documented in the schema, so coverage is adequate, though a note on multi-account/auth context could help given the email parameter.

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 coverage is already high at 83%, so baseline is 3. The description goes beyond the schema by explaining the practical meaning of the value_render_option choices ('inspect formulas' vs 'calculated numbers'), which the enum alone does not convey, earning a modest bump.

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 specific verb and resource ('Read one or more ranges across spreadsheet tabs') and adds a distinguishing scope detail: multiple ranges in one request. It doesn't explicitly contrast with the sibling sheets_get_spreadsheet, so it stops short of a 5, but an agent can tell what this does without opening the schema.

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?

The only guidance is value_render_option semantics ('Choose FORMULA to inspect formulas or UNFORMATTED_VALUE for calculated numbers'), which is parameter-level, not tool-level. There is no statement of when to prefer this over sheets_get_spreadsheet or any prerequisites, leaving usage largely implied.

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