Read Named Range

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

The description adds valuable behavior beyond annotations: it states the return format ('JSON with the value(s) as a 2D array') and clarifies the default for workbook (None = active workbook). Since readOnlyHint is already provided, the safety profile is covered, and these extra details are useful. It does not mention error conditions (e.g., missing name) but is otherwise solid.

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 two sentences followed by a compact Args/Returns listing. The core purpose is front-loaded, and every line either explains a parameter or the output. No waste or redundancy.

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, the description covers essentials: purpose, parameters, default behavior, and return format. It does not explicitly address error handling or alternatives, but these are not critical for a read-only operation. Slightly more context about when to use this vs get_range_values would have made it a 5, but it is largely complete.

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 the description carries the full burden. It explicitly documents both parameters: workbook (name or path, None = active) and name (required). This adds meaning beyond the schema's raw types and defaults, and even clarifies that 'name' is logically required despite the schema not enforcing it.

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') and an unambiguous resource ('named range'), which distinguishes it from siblings like get_range_values (reads by cell address) and list_named_ranges (lists all names). The purpose is immediately obvious to an agent.

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 explains how to call the tool but not when to prefer it over alternatives. It does not mention that get_range_values is for cell addresses or that list_named_ranges is for enumeration. No explicit guidance on selection criteria or exclusion cases exists.

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