read_sheet_values

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does disclose that include_hyperlinks and include_notes default to False 'to avoid expensive includeGridData requests,' which adds meaningful behavioral context about cost. However, it doesn't clarify whether this is a read-only operation (though the name suggests it), whether it requires prior Google auth, or what error or edge-case behavior to expect.

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 well-structured with a one-sentence summary followed by a clean Args section with parameters, defaults, and return value. It is appropriately sized and front-loaded; the core purpose is the first line. Nothing is wasted, though the Args section could arguably be folded more tightly if needed.

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 that this is a read operation with 5 parameters and no annotations, the description covers the essential semantics for calling the tool correctly. However, it misses some context that would help an agent, such as whether prior auth is needed, what the output string format looks like in practice, and potential failure modes. With an output schema present, the return format is partially implied, but a bit more guidance would help.

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 with 5 parameters and no parameter descriptions in the schema, the description must compensate. It does list each parameter with a brief meaning and defaults, including examples and the rationale for the defaults. This adds significant value beyond the raw schema. However, the explanations are concise and don't dive into format constraints or edge cases for parameters like range_name or spreadsheet_id.

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 states a clear verb-resource pair: 'Reads values from a specific range in a Google Sheet.' This is specific enough to convey the core operation and the mention of 'values' plus 'range' distinguishes it from sheet modification tools like modify_sheet_values. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate itself from related read tools such as get_spreadsheet_info or list_spreadsheets, which is a minor gap.

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 by describing what the tool does and its parameters, but it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_spreadsheet_info or modify_sheet_values. There is no mention of prerequisites such as Google auth being required, nor exclusions about when a different read tool should be chosen. The context is understandable but not explicit.

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