excel_create_financial_ratios

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'create' which implies a write/mutation operation, but fails to detail permissions, side effects (e.g., file creation/modification), or output behavior (e.g., what the worksheet contains). This leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's behavior.

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, efficient sentence with no wasted words, clearly front-loading the core action and purpose. It is appropriately sized for the tool's complexity, making it easy to parse quickly.

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?

Given the lack of annotations, 0% schema description coverage, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not address behavioral traits, parameter meanings, or output details, leaving the agent with insufficient context for a mutation tool that creates financial analyses.

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 undocumented parameters. It does not mention any parameters (companyName, worksheetName) or their roles, failing to add meaning beyond the bare schema. This results in inadequate parameter guidance for the agent.

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 action ('Create a financial ratios analysis worksheet') and the resource ('with GAAP-compliant ratio calculations'), making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'calculate_financial_ratios' or 'financial_ratios_analysis', which might offer similar functionality, so it falls 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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as 'calculate_financial_ratios' or 'financial_ratios_analysis' from the sibling list. It lacks context on prerequisites, scenarios, or exclusions, leaving the agent with minimal usage direction.

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