sheets_read

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the burden. It states the read operation and the A1 notation requirement, which is useful. However, it does not disclose other behavioral aspects such as whether formulas or calculated values are returned, or any potential side effects (though likely none).

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 concise two sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose followed by a usage example. Every word earns its place, with no filler or repetition.

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?

For a simple read tool with an output schema available, the description covers the essential usage: what it does and how to specify the range. It could mention return values, but since output schema exists, that is not necessary. The tool is adequately specified for its simplicity.

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%, but the description compensates by explaining the 'range' parameter with an A1 notation example. The 'spreadsheet_id' parameter is self-explanatory given the tool name and context. This adds meaning beyond the raw 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's purpose: 'Read values from a Google Sheet.' The verb 'read' and resource 'Google Sheet' are specific, and the A1 notation example further clarifies the action. It is distinguishable from sibling tools like sheets_write or sheets_append.

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 description implies usage when you want to read values from a sheet, but it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it. No exclusions or comparisons to sibling tools are provided, leaving the guidance mostly implicit.

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