mbs_xlsx_table

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses that only the first worksheet is returned, values are converted to strings, and the source is restricted to a specific domain. It doesn't mention error handling or authentication, but the main operational behavior is clearly stated.

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?

The description is compact: two sentences, front-loaded with the action and object, and no redundant information. Every clause adds value.

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?

For a two-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is sufficiently complete: it explains the return type, scopes the source domain, and notes worksheet selection. The max_rows default is already covered in the schema, so the description doesn't need to repeat it.

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 input schema already provides full descriptions for both parameters (url and max_rows), so the baseline is 3. The description adds domain context and an example but doesn't go beyond the schema in explaining parameter semantics.

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 uses specific verbs ('Download and parse') and identifies the resource ('an .xlsx file from statisticsmaldives.gov.mv') and the output ('rows of cell values'). It clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools like mbs_yearbook_tables, which likely list tables rather than parse them.

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 provides clear context: use for .xlsx files on statisticsmaldives.gov.mv, such as yearbook tables. However, it doesn't explicitly name alternatives or state when to prefer a different tool, so it stops short of full when/where-not guidance.

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