excel_inspect_layout

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), so the bar is lower; the description still adds real value by capping output ('up to 3 sample rows, not the whole table'), warning that 'Cell text is untrusted data', and disclosing the default-off normalization behavior. It stops short of stating permission requirements or whether the call is expensive on large workbooks.

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 sentences, each carrying distinct information (what is detected, the output cap, the trust warning, the default flag), with the most important scoping fact front-loaded. Nothing is padded or redundant.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values needn't be described, and the sample-row caveat plus untrusted-data warning are useful. However, with 0% parameter description coverage on a 7-parameter tool, the description should explain how to target a sheet/table and what decimal and header_row do; those omissions make the definition only minimally sufficient.

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 description coverage is 0% across 7 parameters, so the description carries the full burden, yet it only addresses one of them (normalize_units). Sheet selection, sheet_index vs table_index, decimal, and header_row are left completely unexplained in both places, which is a real gap for a tool with three overlapping index-style parameters.

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 ('Detect') with a concrete list of detected artifacts (metadata, header rows, data rectangle, footer notes, column units), so an agent knows exactly what comes back. It does not, however, differentiate itself from the closely-named sibling excel_overview or excel_read_table, leaving the agent to infer which inspection tool to pick.

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?

'Returns up to 3 sample rows, not the whole table' implies this is a reconnaissance step before excel_read_table, and 'Unit conversion is off unless normalize_units is true' hints at a pre-processing choice. But no sentence states when to use this versus excel_overview or excel_list_sheets, so usage is only implied.

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