Find Excel cell error indicators

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

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior, yet the description adds real context beyond them: cached results may be stale until Excel recalculates, Excel hides ignored findings by default, and which file formats are supported. The only repetition is the return-shape sentence, which the output schema already covers.

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?

Four dense sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and followed by behavior caveats and pagination; every sentence carries information. Slightly cramped, and the return-value sentence is partly redundant with the output schema.

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 paginated, read-only inspection tool with a full input schema and an output schema, the description supplies everything an agent needs: trigger semantics, staleness caveat, default filtering behavior, supported formats, and paging. Nothing material is missing.

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 the baseline is 3, but the description adds meaning beyond the schema: it clarifies the default rules behavior (Excel's enabled rules), the ignored-findings filter, and frames offset/next_offset as pagination for long result lists. It also references next_offset, which is not an input parameter, useful for understanding the returned paging.

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?

Specific verb (lists) plus a precise resource (cells Excel would mark with a green error-checking triangle) with concrete examples of what triggers a finding. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like xlide_read_cells or xlide_rules without opening either schema.

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 makes clear this is the diagnostic tool for error indicators and explains the conditions that change results (include_ignored=true, formula-dependent checks using cached results). It does not name an alternative sibling or state when-not-to-use, so it falls short of a 5 but is far above bare implication.

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