validate_excel

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It clearly states the tool does not import data (a key behavioral trait) and describes what it checks and returns (detected columns, mapping, warnings). This provides substantial transparency, though it omits details like error handling or permissions.

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 concise and well-structured: a brief opening sentence, a bullet-like list of checks, and clearly labeled Args/Returns sections. No redundant information, every sentence provides value.

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?

The description covers purpose, key behavioral constraints, parameter semantics, and return value. Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter, output schema exists), it is fairly complete. It could be improved by explicitly naming when to use it relative to siblings, but overall it's sufficient.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. The Args section specifies 'file_path: Absolute path to the .xlsx file on the server filesystem,' adding crucial context beyond the schema's generic 'File Path' label. This is adequate for the single parameter.

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 tool's function: 'Validate an Excel (.xlsx) file structure without importing data.' It specifies the verb 'validate' and the resource (Excel file structure), and enumerates concrete checks (file format, columns, mapping to schema fields, ambiguous/missing columns). This distinguishes it from import_excel and other 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?

The phrase 'without importing data' implies usage before importing, providing clear context for when to use this tool. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, so it stops short of full guidance.

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