validate

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It thoroughly explains read-only semantics, the meaning of passed=false, what each check covers, and that external links are reported but not repaired. This is far beyond the structured data available.

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 dense but well-organized, front-loaded with the core purpose and followed by a structured enumeration of check types, return semantics, and operational notes. Every sentence and parenthetical carries useful information without padding.

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 that an output schema exists and the description covers default behavior, check semantics, return semantics, read-only guarantees, and the Excel-open requirement, the tool description is complete enough for an agent to select and invoke it correctly.

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 checks parameter is documented in exceptional detail, including its default value and every possible check option with meaning. The path parameter is not explicitly described, but the file context is implied throughout. Schema coverage is 0%, so the description compensates strongly, though not completely for path.

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 verb and resource: 'Run read-only correctness checks and return one report.' It clearly distinguishes itself from sibling editing tools by emphasizing read-only behavior and enumerating concrete check types, making the tool's purpose unambiguous.

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 tells the agent this is for correctness validation, works while the file is open in Excel, and explicitly states that repairs belong to the editing tools. It gives clear context for when to use the tool, though it does not name specific alternative sibling tools or provide explicit when-not-to-use criteria.

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