sheets_summarize_range

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 fully covered. The description adds no behavioral detail beyond that — notably it never says which statistics are produced or how missing/non-numeric cells are handled, which matters for an aggregation 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?

A single tight sentence with the core action front-loaded and the optional modifier at the end. No wasted words, though the brevity contributes to the transparency gaps noted elsewhere.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description is the only place an agent could learn what the summary actually returns (count, mean, min/max, etc.), and it does not. For a computation tool with a structured return, this is a meaningful omission even though the input side is well covered.

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 100%, so all three parameters (range, spreadsheet_id, group_by_column) are documented in the schema. The description's 'optional grouping' merely echoes the existing group_by_column description rather than adding format or semantic detail, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb ('Computes summary statistics') and resource ('columns in a range'), with the optional grouping qualifier. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like sheets_read_range and sheets_analyze_trends, though it never names an alternative explicitly.

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 prefer this over sheets_read_range, sheets_analyze_trends, or sheets_find_duplicates, and no prerequisites or constraints stated. The agent must infer usage from the one-sentence purpose alone.

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