describe_dataset

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description aligns with this by using 'Summarize'. The description adds context about the target being a worksheet or native Excel table, but does not disclose what the summary contains or how it behaves beyond that, which is a moderate gap given no output schema.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It effectively communicates the core action and purpose without redundancy.

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?

The tool has 5 parameters and no output schema, so the description must explain return values and sufficient context. It does not specify what the summary includes (e.g., dimensions, columns, sample rows), leaving a significant gap for an agent to know what to expect. The description is too terse for the tool's complexity.

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%, and the description does not compensate. While the schema properties are self-titled, the description adds no meaning about filepath, header_row, sheet_name, table_name, or sample_rows. It only generically mentions worksheets/tables, not mapping to specific parameters. This fails to help the agent understand parameter semantics.

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 uses a specific verb ('Summarize') and identifies the resource ('worksheet or native Excel table') with a clear outcome ('agent-friendly orientation'). It distinguishes itself from sibling read tools by focusing on summarization for orientation rather than raw data extraction.

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 phrase 'for agent-friendly orientation' implies use when an agent needs a quick overview before working with a dataset. However, no explicit when-to-use vs alternatives or exclusions are provided, leaving usage context only implied.

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