Read Sheet Values

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds no behavioral details beyond the obvious 'reads values'; it doesn't mention range clamping, default behaviors, or return format. It provides minimal additional value beyond annotations.

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?

A single sentence with zero waste. It clearly states the core purpose and relies on the schema for details, making it an appropriately sized description.

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?

The tool is simple, annotations cover safety, schema covers all parameters, and an output schema exists. However, the description lacks usage context such as when to choose this over other sheet tools, and doesn't mention the required user_google_email or that it's a read-only operation. It's adequate but leaves room for improvement in guiding selection.

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 100%, with detailed parameter descriptions including defaults, clamping behavior, and performance implications (e.g., includeGridData). The description itself adds no parameter semantics, but the baseline of 3 is appropriate given the schema carries the full burden.

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?

Description uses a specific verb ('reads') and resource ('values from a specific range in a Google Sheet'), clearly indicating the tool's function. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings like get_spreadsheet_info or list_spreadsheets, but the action is 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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as modify_sheet_values, format_sheet_range, or get_spreadsheet_info. The description only states what it does, leaving the agent to infer usage context without explicit exclusions or alternative recommendations.

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