suggest_read_strategy

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

readOnlyHint=true is already declared, so the description only needs to add behavior — but it does not say whether this tool actually opens/parses the workbook (and at what cost) or just reasons over the arguments, nor how the recommendation is returned. For a 'strategy' tool, the distinction between inspecting the file versus returning a static suggestion is the single most important behavioral fact, and it is missing.

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 filler. It is efficiently written, though the brevity contributes to the specification gaps noted elsewhere rather than being 'complete and tight'.

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?

Six parameters at 17% coverage, no output schema, and only a readOnly annotation — the description is far too thin for a tool whose whole value is explaining which reader to pick and why. It never says how the recommendation should be interpreted or whether the caller is expected to re-invoke the suggested tool.

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 only 17% — just filepath is documented; goal, header_row, sheet_name, table_name, and sample_rows are bare. The description mentions only an abstract 'workbook target' and adds no meaning for goal (what kind of goal phrasing helps), sample_rows (why 25), or header_row.

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?

States a specific verb ('Recommend') and object ('best SheetForge read tool for the requested workbook target'), so an agent knows this is a router/advisor rather than a reader. It does not name the candidate read tools (quick_read, read_excel_as_table, read_range_formatting) or say what signal the recommendation is based on, so it is clear but undifferentiated from the many read siblings.

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?

There is no statement of when to call this instead of directly calling quick_read, describe_dataset, or read_excel_table, and no prerequisites or exclusions. The agent must infer the 'call me first when unsure which reader to use' pattern from the name alone.

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