goal_seek

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It explicitly states that the tool is destructive, writes the solved value back to the workbook, and returns a dict with status and iterations. This is a strong disclosure, though it could also mention reversibility or side effects on existing formulas.

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 well-structured with a front-loaded summary, then Args, Returns, and Notes sections. However, the final note 'Recommend adding a short example expression in docs' is meta-commentary that does not help the agent invoke the tool and could be omitted.

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?

For a complex tool with 8 parameters and no output schema, the description covers each parameter, states the return value, and highlights destructive behavior. It lacks a concrete example expression and doesn't address error cases, but for the core invocation it is reasonably complete.

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?

The schema has zero description coverage, but the description's Args section provides concise, meaningful explanations for all 8 parameters (e.g., 'expression: Arithmetic expression referencing worksheet cells'). This fully compensates for the schema's silence.

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 opens with a specific action: 'Find a variable cell value that makes an expression evaluate to a target and write the result.' This clearly states the tool's purpose, distinguishes it from broader optimizers like run_solver, and includes the resource it operates on (a workbook cell).

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 guidance on when to use this tool over alternatives like run_solver or break_even_analysis. The notes mention destructive behavior but do not provide context for tool selection or exclusion criteria.

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