Check formula integrity

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

Annotations already declare the read-only, idempotent, non-destructive profile, so the description's job is to add nuance beyond that — and it does: 'never evaluates formulas' and 'presents variations as human review leads' set important expectations about output interpretation. It stops short of describing result structure or finding limits, but with an output schema present that is acceptable.

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 tight sentences: the first defines the check scope, the second front-loads the behavioral caveat about not evaluating formulas. No filler, no repetition of the title.

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?

With annotations, full schema coverage, and an output schema, the description gives an agent enough to select and call correctly, including the crucial caveat that findings are heuristic leads. A brief note on truncation via max_findings would make it fully 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 coverage is 100%, so all three parameters (file_path, sheet_name, max_findings) are fully documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level detail such as path resolution behavior or how max_findings truncation affects results, 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 (review) and resource (formula cells in an XLSX sheet) plus exactly what it looks for: cached errors, #REF! text, and relative-pattern variations. The scope is clearly distinct from inspect_workbook, compare_workbooks, and reconcile_totals, though it never names those siblings to make the contrast explicit.

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?

Usage is only implied — an agent can infer this is the tool for auditing formula health, but there is no explicit when-to-use statement, no prerequisites, and no routing versus inspect_workbook or reconcile_totals.

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