Compare workbooks

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, yet the description still adds real behavioral detail: duplicate or blank keys are surfaced, keys are never returned, and changed values are suppressed unless include_values is true. These are output-shaping traits the annotations do not cover, though it says nothing about ordering, path resolution errors, or limits beyond the schema's max_reported_changes.

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?

Three short clauses, zero filler, and the core operation is front-loaded ahead of the caveats about keys and changed values. Every sentence carries distinct information.

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 an output schema present, return-value explanation is unnecessary, and the description covers the important behavioral caveats (key suppression, duplicate/blank key reporting, include_values default). Minor gap: no mention of path/root prerequisites or failure modes for mismatched schemas, which for a 7-parameter tool would round it out.

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 baseline would be 3; the description earns an extra point by explaining the consequence of include_values (changed cell values excluded by default) and confirming keys are never returned. It still does not clarify how key_columns are matched or what happens when multiple key columns are supplied.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource ('Compare two CSV/XLSX tables') plus the mechanism ('using explicit key columns'), so an agent can immediately tell it apart from inspect_workbook or reconcile_totals. It never names a sibling explicitly, which keeps it just below a 5.

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 implied by 'using explicit key columns' and the schema note that keys come from inspect_workbook, suggesting inspect first, compare after. However there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance or statement of which sibling to prefer for alternative tasks such as total reconciliation.

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