get_data_validation_info

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

The description adds the return format (JSON string) and the scope of retrieval (all rules in the worksheet), which is useful context. However, the read-only behavior is already covered by the readOnlyHint annotation, and the description does not disclose edge cases, performance considerations, or any other behavioral traits beyond what annotations provide.

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 efficiently structured with a clear opening sentence, an Args section, and a Returns section. Every sentence contributes value, and there is no redundant or filler content. It is appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity.

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 simple read-only tool with two parameters, the description provides adequate context: purpose, parameter roles, and return format. Since there is no output schema, the explicit statement that the return is a JSON string is helpful. It does not explain behavior when no validation rules exist, but that is a minor 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. The Args section only restates the parameter names with obvious definitions ('filepath: Path to Excel file', 'sheet_name: Name of worksheet'), which adds little meaning beyond the schema itself. This is insufficient for a tool with no schema-level descriptions.

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's function: 'Get all data validation rules in a worksheet.' It uses a specific verb and resource, making the purpose apparent. However, it does not distinguish itself from the sibling tool 'inspect_data_validation_rules', which likely serves a similar function, so it misses the top score.

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. It lacks any mention of exclusions, prerequisites, or specific scenarios that would help an agent decide between this tool and similar ones like 'inspect_data_validation_rules' or 'read_data_from_excel'.

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