get-excel-used-range

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations: it returns specific fields (address, values, formulas, numberFormat, rowCount, columnCount) and clarifies the semantics of 'used range' as encompassing cells with values or formatting. Also mentions optional $select trimming, which is not in the schema.

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 concise and well-structured: a clear verb-first sentence followed by a practical tip and return field list. Every sentence earns its place, and the format is scannable. It is appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description compensates by listing return fields. It also explains the use case and optional $select. While it doesn't address all parameters (fetchAllPages, includeHeaders, excludeResponse), those are fully covered in the schema. Overall, the description plus schema provides sufficient context for an AI agent.

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% for the listed parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds extra meaning by noting 'Optional $select to trim the response,' which is not present in the input schema. This provides useful parameter-level guidance beyond what the schema offers.

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's purpose: 'Get an Excel used range.' It further defines what a used range means (smallest range encompassing cells with values or formatting) and lists the returned data fields. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get-excel-range, which fetches a specific range, rather than discovering bounds.

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 'Use this to discover the populated bounds of a sheet before reading or appending — avoids guessing how far data extends.' This gives a clear use case and implies when to choose this tool over others. It doesn't explicitly state when not to use it, but the guidance is strong.

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