Excel Analytics MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but only mentions sandboxed execution. It doesn't disclose important behavioral aspects like permissions needed, whether the tool is idempotent, error handling, rate limits, or what happens when creating duplicate tools. The sandbox hint is useful but insufficient for a creation 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 sentences that are reasonably efficient. The first sentence states the core purpose and key requirements. The second provides specific format guidance for the parameters field. Could be slightly more front-loaded but wastes no words.

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 this is a creation tool with 4 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, but has an output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic what and how-to-format parameters, but lacks important context about permissions, error conditions, and relationship to sibling tools. The output schema existence helps but doesn't compensate for missing behavioral context.

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 must compensate. It explains the parameters field format with a JSON string example showing structure, but doesn't clarify the purpose of name, description, or python_code parameters beyond what the schema titles suggest. The example adds some value but doesn't fully explain all 4 parameters.

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 clearly states the tool creates a custom Python tool with sandboxed execution, specifying the required run() function signature. It distinguishes from siblings like delete_tool or edit_tool by focusing on creation, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with test_tool or list_my_tools.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like edit_tool or test_tool. The description mentions the code structure but doesn't provide context about prerequisites, typical use cases, or when other tools might be more appropriate.

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