excel_read_table

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 adds real context beyond that: cell text is 'untrusted data', values are cached formula results unless include_formulas is set, and '<LOD and <LOQ stay text'. It omits anything about error behavior or permission needs on the path.

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?

Six short, front-loaded sentences with no filler; the output shape and untrusted-data caveat come first, and each remaining sentence adds a distinct instruction or behavior.

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 need no prose explanation, and the description covers pagination, formula text, unit normalization, and text-preservation caveats. But for a 10-parameter tool it leaves the majority of parameters (sheet/table/header selection, decimal, max_rows) undefined and offers no sibling differentiation.

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 10 parameters, so the description carries the full burden. It only clarifies include_formulas, normalize_units, and offset, leaving path, sheet, decimal, max_rows, header_row, sheet_index, and table_index entirely undocumented in both schema and prose.

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 ('Return'), resource ('cleaned lab table'), and output shape ('JSON rows plus column metadata'), plus pagination scope ('one page'). 'Cleaned lab table' implicitly distinguishes it from a raw range read, though it never names excel_read_range explicitly.

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?

Provides conditional usage for specific flags ('set include_formulas=true to also return formula text', 'set normalize_units=true', 'Use offset for the next page'), which is genuinely helpful. However, it gives no guidance on when to prefer this over sibling excel_read_range or excel_inspect_layout, so routing between tools is left to inference.

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