estimate_excel

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

No annotations, so description carries full burden. It discloses the default return behavior (72h short link), the fallback mode, and that formulas are present in the output. It doesn't state rate limits or error behavior, but the delivery semantics are unusually well covered.

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 front-loaded sentences with no filler. Everything stated is actionable: input type, output type, delivery modes, prerequisites.

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?

Covers delivery, prerequisites, and return modes well, but the required `estimate` object is a nested, undocumented structure (schema coverage 33%, no output schema). An agent cannot verify how to shape the estimate JSON from this description alone, relying entirely on get_skill_instructions routing.

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?

The schema covers 33% of parameters; the estimate object has no description at all, and file_name has no description either. The description compensates for return_mode (default vs recommended) but not for the required estimate structure. Baseline 3 given the partial 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?

States a specific verb and resource: 估算数据JSON → 三表Excel(估算表/汇总/技术经济指标,全公式). It names the output artifact type and the input type, distinguishing it from siblings like fast_calc_excel or permitted_cost_excel.

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 two prerequisite tools (get_skill_instructions(skill=estimate) for format spec, get_protocol_instructions as prerequisite). The return_mode alternatives (base64 vs url) are also explained. This is routing-grade guidance.

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