convert_number_to_text

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states the conversion behavior and return value, but fails to disclose whether the operation modifies the original file in-place or returns a new representation. The phrase 'converts numeric values to text strings' suggests a mutation, but the description does not warn about potential data loss or reversibility. It also does not mention any permissions or side effects.

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, two sentences long, and front-loads the primary verb and resource. It is informative without being verbose, though it could be slightly more compact by omitting the API mention.

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 not be detailed in the description. The description covers the core functionality but lacks important context: whether the operation is in-place, how to specify the range and worksheet, and error behavior. For a relatively simple tool, it is adequate but has clear gaps that could lead to misuse.

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 compensate by explaining parameters. It mentions 'within a specified range of a worksheet', which gives some context for `_range` and `worksheet`, but it does not explain the format for `_range` (e.g., 'A1:B2') or the exact meaning of `worksheet`. The required `file_token` parameter is not mentioned at all. This is insufficient for low schema coverage.

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 identifies the operation: converting numeric values (integers, decimals, percentages, currencies, dates, times) to text strings within a worksheet range. It distinguishes itself from sibling conversion tools by focusing on number-to-text conversion within a specific range, rather than whole-file format conversion.

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 provides clear context: it operates on a specified range of a worksheet in an Excel file. It implies when to use it (when you need numeric values in a range converted to text). However, it does not explicitly state alternatives or when not to use it, so it falls short of a 5.

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