audit_workbook

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

The annotation readOnlyHint=true already covers the read-only nature, lowering the bar. The description adds context that the audit focuses on issues affecting agent workflows, but does not disclose output format, potential performance costs, or what constitutes 'high-signal'. This is adequate but not rich.

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 a single sentence that front-loads the verb and resource. Every word earns its place, with no redundant information or filler.

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 no output schema and three parameters, the description is too terse. It does not explain what the audit returns, how sample_limit and header_row affect results, or any behavioral details. The agent lacks sufficient information to invoke the tool correctly with confidence.

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 carries the burden of explaining parameters. It mentions none of the three parameters (filepath, header_row, sample_limit), providing no meaning beyond the raw schema field names. This is a significant gap.

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 the tool audits workbook structure, using a specific verb and resource. It adds scope with 'high-signal issues that affect agent workflows,' which hints at its purpose. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like 'profile_workbook' or 'plan_workbook_repairs', so it's clear but not fully differentiated.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling tools such as 'profile_workbook' and 'plan_workbook_repairs', the agent receives no context on selection criteria, exclusions, or alternative workflows.

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