analyze_excel_data

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

Annotations already declare read-only, non-destructive, and idempotent behavior. The description reinforces this with 'never modifies the input file' and 'Read-only', adding explicit confirmation. It also discloses the scope of analysis (per-sheet counts, headers, inferred types), which goes beyond annotations by describing what the tool inspects, but doesn't detail edge cases like formula evaluation or large file behavior.

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, with the key purpose and read-only guarantee front-loaded. It lists specific outputs in a compressed list and then mentions alternatives in a final sentence. No wasted words, and every sentence contributes to understanding.

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 the tool has a detailed output schema (not shown in detail but indicated as 'true'), the description doesn't need to explain return values. With only 2 parameters (one required), the description covers what the tool does and its safety profile. The only gap is not specifying which options from the shared ToolOptions are relevant, but for a read-only analysis tool, most options (like backup, restore) are likely inapplicable, and the description's clarity about read-only behavior implicitly signals that. Slight incompleteness for an agent unfamiliar with the options structure.

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 schema has 0% description coverage, and the only functional parameter is 'input_path' which is self-explanatory. The options parameter is a complex nested object with many fields for other tools, but the description doesn't clarify which options apply to this tool. Even with low schema coverage, the input_path is obvious, and the options are likely irrelevant to this read-only analysis, so the description adds no extra meaning beyond what the parameter name suggests.

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: analyzing an Excel workbook without modifying it, and lists specific analysis outputs (row/column counts, headers, column types, null counts, sample rows, duplicate detection). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by explicitly mentioning edit_excel_workbook and extract_document_data as alternatives.

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 gives clear guidance on when to use the tool: for analysis before applying fixes or extracting text. It names alternatives (edit_excel_workbook for fixes, extract_document_data for raw text), but doesn't provide explicit when-not-to-use conditions, though the alternative mentions serve as implicit exclusions.

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