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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden, and it delivers with the explicit statement 'Runs nothing.' It also clarifies that it reports which procedures can run and why some are blocked, and notes embedded objects are 'preserved,' strongly indicating a non-mutating inspection 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 dense sentences front-load the core purpose and scope, then provide safety and usage guidance. Every clause adds value; the long list of inspected artifacts is efficient rather than padded.

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?

Despite having no output schema and no annotations, the description covers what the tool inspects, its read-only behavior, and when to call it. Nothing essential is missing for an agent to decide to invoke it correctly.

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 tool has zero parameters and the schema is an empty object, so there is no parameter-semantics burden for the description to carry. The baseline of 4 for zero-parameter tools 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?

The verb 'Map' plus the explicit resource ('the whole application model of this workbook') makes the tool's purpose unmistakable. The enumerated contents (sheets, VBA modules, procedures, event handlers, dependencies, references, queries, connections, controls) precisely distinguish it from narrower siblings like sheet_describe, macro_list, and query_list.

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 explicitly says 'Call this first for questions like how is this workbook built or what does it depend on,' giving clear when-to-use guidance. It does not mention when not to use it or contrast it directly with alternatives, so it stops short of a full 5.

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