excel_read_range

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

Annotations already cover the read-only, idempotent, non-destructive safety profile, yet the description adds real value beyond them: a prompt-injection warning that cell text is untrusted data and the behavioral rule that formulas return null unless include_formulas is true. It stops short of describing pagination, size limits, or what happens on invalid ranges.

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 tight sentences, each earning its place: purpose, trust warning, selection criteria, then parameter behavior. The core identity ('raw A1 range without header detection') is front-loaded before the supporting detail.

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-value documentation is unnecessary, and the description covers purpose, routing, safety, and the one non-obvious flag. The remaining gap is minor: no note on sheet vs. sheet_index precedence or error behavior for a multi-sheet workbook.

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%, so the description must carry parameter meaning. It does explain include_formulas precisely and implies the A1 format for cell_range, but path, sheet, and sheet_index are left with only their self-evident names. Partial compensation, not full.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Read a raw A1 range') and immediately differentiates itself from the sibling excel_read_table by the key qualifier 'without header detection.' An agent can distinguish the two 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?

Explicitly names the conditions that select this tool ('when table detection fails or the cells sit far down the sheet'), which is strong positive guidance. It does not explicitly say when not to use it (e.g. 'prefer excel_read_table when a header exists'), so the routing is implied rather than fully spelled out.

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