excel_read_sheet

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

The annotations include readOnlyHint=true, which already signals read-only behavior. The description does not contradict this and adds no additional behavioral traits beyond the annotations. With annotations covering safety, a score of 3 is appropriate.

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 very concise, with a single phrase that immediately conveys the tool's purpose. It is front-loaded and efficient, though slightly terse.

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 absence of an output schema and the presence of sibling read tools, the description could be more specific about what 'complete data' entails (e.g., all rows and columns, data types). It is adequate but leaves room for ambiguity.

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 75%, with three of four parameters well-documented in the schema. The description adds 'complete data' but no parameter-specific details. The schema already provides clear descriptions, so the description does not add significant value beyond the 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 clearly states the tool reads complete data from a sheet with an optional range. The verb 'read' and resource 'sheet' are explicit, distinguishing it from write tools. However, 'complete data' is somewhat vague and could be clarified further.

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 on when to use this tool versus similar tools like excel_read_range. The description does not differentiate use cases, leaving the agent uncertain about selection.

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