Excel Finance MCP

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 states it 'creates' a worksheet, implying a write operation, but doesn't specify whether this modifies an existing file, creates a new one, requires specific permissions, or details the output format. The mention of 'formulas and documentation' hints at content but lacks depth on 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 that front-loads the key action and resource. It avoids redundancy and wastes no words, 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 complexity of creating a financial analysis worksheet with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It lacks details on behavioral traits (e.g., file handling, error cases), parameter meanings, and output expectations, leaving significant gaps for an AI agent to infer correct usage.

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 33% (only 'discountRate' has a description), and the description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what the schema provides. It doesn't explain the purpose of 'projectName' or 'worksheetName', nor does it clarify the scope of 'comprehensive' in relation to inputs. The baseline is 3 due to the schema's partial coverage.

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') and resource ('comprehensive NPV analysis worksheet with formulas and documentation'), making the purpose evident. It distinguishes from siblings like 'calculate_npv' by specifying it creates a worksheet rather than just performing a calculation, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with other worksheet-creation tools like 'excel_create_cash_flow_projection'.

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. It doesn't mention when to choose this over 'calculate_npv' for simple calculations or over other Excel creation tools for different financial analyses, nor does it specify prerequisites like requiring an existing workbook.

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