inspect_workbook

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does a good job by specifying the exact fields returned for each object type, which effectively substitutes for a missing output schema. It never explicitly states the operation is read-only / non-mutating, nor whether large workbooks cause truncation or latency, which is the remaining gap.

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?

Two sentences: the return contract first, then the action directive. Every clause names a concrete object type and its attributes; 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?

For a zero-required-parameter inspection tool with no output schema, the description is nearly self-sufficient because it documents the return shape in detail. It could go one step further on read-only guarantee or behavior on very large workbooks, but an agent has what it needs to call it correctly.

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% and the workbookId parameter is fully documented in the schema ("Target workbook ID from list_workbooks. Optional when only one workbook is connected."). The description adds no additional meaning about the parameter, so baseline 3 applies.

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?

Uses a specific verb ("Overview of the live workbook") and then enumerates exactly what it covers: worksheets with their attributes, Excel tables, named ranges, and PivotTables. That enumeration also distinguishes it from list_workbooks (which lists workbooks, not their contents) without the agent needing to open 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?

"Use this first to orient yourself in an unfamiliar workbook" is an explicit when-to-use directive, stronger than most sibling definitions offer. It stops short of naming anti-patterns or alternatives (e.g. use read_range once you know the address), so the routing is clear but not exhaustive.

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