inspect_data_validation_rules

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already establishes the safe, read-only nature of this tool. The description adds minimal behavioral context with the phrase 'stable rule indexes,' implying a guarantee about index stability, but it does not disclose return format, handling of broken rules, or ordering. This aligns with a baseline where annotations carry the safety burden and the description contributes limited extra 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 a single, front-loaded sentence that uses no filler words. It efficiently states the action and the key qualifier without any redundancy, making it maximally concise.

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?

Despite the readOnlyHint annotation, the description omits critical context: what the broken_only parameter does, what the return value looks like, and what 'stable rule indexes' means in practice. With no output schema and minimal description, the tool is not adequately contextualized for an agent to use it correctly.

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 provides no explanations for the parameters. The meanings of filepath, sheet_name, and especially broken_only are left entirely to the agent's inference. The description does nothing to compensate for the missing schema descriptions, making parameter semantics essentially absent.

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?

Description uses the specific verb 'inspect' and identifies the resource as 'worksheet data validation rules.' It adds a distinguishing qualifier 'stable rule indexes' that hints at a unique behavior. However, it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like get_data_validation_info, so it stops short of a perfect 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 given on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_data_validation_info or remove_data_validation_rules. The description only states the action without any context, exclusions, or recommendations, leaving the agent without usage direction.

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