excel_validate_range

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

The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond the readOnlyHint annotation. It doesn't disclose whether the tool returns a boolean, throws an error, or provides validation details. Given that annotations already mark it as read-only, the description should clarify the outcome but does not.

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 with no redundant words. It is front-loaded and efficient. However, it could be slightly expanded without losing conciseness to include the return value or behavior.

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 tool's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema), the description is minimally adequate. It fails to explain what happens on success or failure (e.g., returns true/false or raises an exception). This gap reduces completeness for an agent deciding whether to use the result.

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 input schema has 100% coverage with a description for the 'range' parameter ('Range to validate (e.g., A1:D10)'). The tool description essentially restates this without adding new meaning. As per the baseline for high schema coverage, a score of 3 is appropriate.

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 states the verb 'Validate' and the resource 'range string', clearly indicating the tool's purpose. It is distinct from sibling tools like excel_read_range or excel_create_chart. However, it does not specify what constitutes a valid range, which could be inferred from the parameter description but is not repeated.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. For example, it doesn't clarify whether validation is needed before using a range in other operations or list conditions that make a range invalid. The agent has no context for appropriate usage.

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