audit_rows

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states the action and focus areas but does not disclose whether the operation is read-only, what the return format is, whether rows are modified, or any other behavioral details. This leaves significant ambiguity.

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 sentence, efficient and front-loaded. However, the phrase 'spreadsheet-like' is slightly vague and could be more precise, though the structure itself is acceptable.

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?

With only one parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is inadequate. It does not explain what the output looks like, how 'footing' or 'margins' are calculated, or any error behavior. The tool is underspecified for reliable invocation.

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 for the 'rows' parameter, and the description only mentions rows indirectly. It does not explain the expected structure of the array (e.g., objects, cell formats, required fields), so the agent cannot understand how to construct valid input.

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 uses a specific verb ('audit') and resource ('spreadsheet-like rows') and names concrete audit dimensions (footing, margins, formula cells, cell provenance). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like diff_rows and verify_claim.

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 implies the tool is for auditing row-level spreadsheet integrity but provides no explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives, nor any exclusions or prerequisites. Context is clear but not fully developed.

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