validate_excel_range

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

No annotations exist, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It does not mention what happens when validation fails, whether the tool is read-only, or any side effects. The output schema exists but the description does not explain the return value.

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 short and well-structured with an Args list and a note. However, the Args list largely repeats the schema, so it could be more concise by focusing on additional context.

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 has 5 parameters and no annotations, the description lacks details on validation criteria and behavior. The output schema exists, so return value details are not required, but contextual completeness suffers from missing edge-case information.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It lists parameters but only adds minimal value beyond names: specifying that session_id is preferred and filepath is deprecated. This is helpful but insufficient for full clarity.

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 'Validate if a range exists and is properly formatted', which is a specific verb+resource. It is distinct from sibling tools like write_data_to_excel or read_data_from_excel, though no explicit differentiation is given.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like validate_formula_syntax or read_data_from_excel. The note about preferring session_id over filepath is about parameter choice, not tool selection.

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