Get Table Data

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, the description adds meaningful behavioral details: it excludes the header, returns a 2D array, and specifies a JSON response with column names and rows. It does not contradict the read-only nature.

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 concise and well-structured: a clear purpose statement followed by structured Args and Returns sections. It is front-loaded and contains no unnecessary prose.

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 description covers the function, parameters, and return format well. However, there is a minor discrepancy: it labels table_name as required while the schema gives it a default of null, which could confuse an agent. Otherwise it is complete for a read operation.

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 schema provides no descriptions for parameters (0% coverage), so the description fully compensates by explaining each parameter (workbook, sheet, table_name) including defaults and the required nature of table_name. This is essential guidance.

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 action (read data rows from a table), identifies the resource (table), and specifies the output format (2D array excluding header). It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like get_range_values by targeting table-specific data.

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 for reading table rows but does not explicitly mention when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_range_values or get_table_info. There is no guidance on exclusions or alternative selection.

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