fast_calc_excel

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does well: it discloses the default delivery mechanism (72h download short link), the reason (prevent large files from blowing up context), the fallback mode, and an automatic downgrade threshold (100k chars). It does not cover permissions, idempotency, or failure behavior, but for a compute tool this is solid disclosure.

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?

Front-loaded with the input→output transformation, then delivery behavior, then the prerequisite. Dense but each clause carries information. There is mild overlap between the description and the return_mode schema text, costing it a perfect score.

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 3-param tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the essential return behavior (file.url short link), the fallback path, and an ordering prerequisite, which is more than most peers. It leaves the actual Excel content/12-sheet structure unexplained, but that is out of scope for invocation correctness.

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 100%, so the schema already documents files, file_name, and return_mode, so the baseline is 3. The description restates the return_mode semantics (url default, base64 fallback, auto-downgrade) rather than adding new meaning beyond the enum description. No compensating gaps exist.

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 (快速测算) and the exact transformation: 5 txt inputs → a 12-sheet full-formula Excel in the E投 caliber. The 'E投口径' qualifier is a real distinguishing signal versus generic siblings like estimate_excel. It stops short of naming an alternative sibling to disambiguate fast_calc_reports or fast_calc_solve.

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 an explicit prerequisite: '前置：需先调 get_protocol_instructions' — a concrete ordering constraint most descriptions omit. It also explains when to prefer the default url mode vs base64 fallback. It does not say when to use this over sibling calculation tools, so it is not a full 5.

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