get_data_validation_info

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

With no annotations provided, the description must disclose all behavioral traits. It only states that the tool returns a JSON string of validation rules, but does not mention side effects (e.g., read-only, no modifications), required permissions, or error conditions. This leaves significant gaps for a read operation.

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 reasonably concise, but the Args section redundantly lists parameters already in the schema. The core purpose is front-loaded. Some words could be trimmed without loss.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (3 parameters, output schema exists), the description covers the essential purpose and key parameter guidance. The return type is stated, though the output schema itself provides more detail. Missing behavioral transparency is the main gap.

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. It adds value by noting that session_id is preferred for better performance and filepath is deprecated, which goes beyond the schema's type information. However, it does not describe the format of sheet_name or any constraints.

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 states 'Get all data validation rules in a worksheet' with additional context about identifying ranges and validation types. This verb+resource combination is specific and distinct from sibling tools like validate_excel_range.

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 implies usage by explaining what the tool does, but does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives like validate_excel_range or validate_formula_syntax. No exclusions or context for when-not-to-use are provided.

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