Read rows

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It clearly says 'reads rows' and reveals output modes plus pagination via limit/offset or A1 range. It does not explicitly say 'read-only/no modification', but the read verb and output-focused wording provide adequate expectation for a low-risk 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?

Two concise, front-loaded sentences. The routing instruction is stated first, followed by a compact capability summary covering format and pagination with no wasted words.

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 six parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential invocation context: target file type, output format, and pagination choice. Remaining gaps, such as explicit sibling-tool alternatives and more detail on path semantics, are minor because the schema already documents the parameters.

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?

The input schema already covers about 83% of parameters, and the description reinforces meaning for the path parameter as a spreadsheet or CSV file path. It also clarifies that limit/offset and A1 range are alternative pagination mechanisms, matching and supplementing the schema descriptions.

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 names a specific action ('Reads rows') on a specific resource ('any spreadsheet or CSV file path') and lists output formats. It distinguishes the tool from built-in file readers but does not explicitly distinguish it from sibling sheet tools such as sheet_query or sheet_info.

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?

It gives a clear trigger: call this tool for any spreadsheet or CSV file path, and explicitly says built-in file readers must not be used for them. It does not, however, contrast with sibling sheet_* tools, so an agent might not know when sheet_query or sheet_info would be more appropriate.

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