quick_read

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description's 'Read' is consistent with that. The description adds useful context beyond annotations: fallback to the first workbook sheet when no sheet is specified, and the ability to return either array rows or object-shaped records plus optional schema hints. This extra behavioral detail is valuable and shows no contradiction.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose and followed by output mode details. It is compact and contains no fluff, though it could arguably be more structured with examples or parameter groupings.

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?

With 10 parameters, no output schema, and no parameter descriptions, this description is not complete enough. It fails to explain range selection, header handling, row limits, or result shapes in enough detail, and it doesn't distinguish itself from many sibling read tools. The agent would be under-informed for correct invocation.

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 for the 10 parameters. It only hints at row_mode (array rows vs object records), infer_schema (schema hints), and sheet_name (explicit sheet or first sheet). Parameters like start_col, end_col, max_rows, header_row, and include_headers are completely unexplained, leaving the agent without sufficient semantic guidance.

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+resource combo: 'Read a compact table from an explicit sheet or the first workbook sheet.' It also clarifies output modes (array rows vs object records) and schema inference. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling read tools like read_excel_as_table or read_data_from_excel, though the 'compact table' phrasing and output options provide some differentiation.

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 implies usage context ('quick read', 'compact table', 'first workbook sheet'), but it provides no explicit guidance on when to prefer this tool over read_excel_as_table, read_excel_table, or query_table. No exclusions or alternatives are mentioned, so the guidance is only implicit.

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