sheets_read

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only says 'read values' and explains range notation; it does not disclose behavioral traits such as whether it returns formulas vs. computed values, how errors are handled, authentication needs, or any side effects. The read intent is implied but not explicitly detailed beyond the verb.

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 two sentences: a clear statement of purpose and a concise usage example. Every sentence earns its place; there is no fluff. It is front-loaded with the action and immediately explains the important range syntax.

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 need not be described. However, the description provides minimal context about when to use this tool among the many sheets_* siblings. It covers the essential range syntax but omits any behavioral context such as default range behavior (only in schema) or gaps with similar tools. For a two-parameter read tool, this is adequate but not comprehensive.

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. It effectively explains the 'range' parameter with the A1 notation example, which is the syntactically complex parameter. The 'spreadsheet_id' is left to the name and schema, but it is self-explanatory. This partial compensation merits a 4.

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's action ('Read values from a Google Sheet') with a specific verb and resource. It adds the A1 notation detail, which helps clarify the range format. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like sheets_get_info or sheets_write, so it falls short of a 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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as sheets_get_info or sheets_write. The description provides a usage tip (A1 notation) but lacks context about prerequisites, when not to use it, or alternative tools. This leaves the agent to infer usage from the name alone.

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