xlsx_filter

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

Beyond annotations (readOnly, idempotent, etc.), the description adds critical behavioral details: formulas are evaluated server-side (not cached results), returns markdown table capped at 1000 rows with actual match count. No contradiction with annotations.

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: it opens with the core purpose, followed by behavioral context, then clear usage guidelines. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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 complexity (nested objects, no output schema), the description covers purpose, usage, behavioral traits, and key parameter aspects. It could further detail the output format or options like header_row, but overall it is sufficiently 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?

With 0% schema coverage, the description compensates by explaining that predicates are AND-combined and listing supported operators. However, it does not describe other parameters like file_b64, header_row, or sheet, leaving some reliance on the schema.

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 it performs a 'pandas-style row filter' on a local .xlsx file with AND-combined predicates, and explicitly distinguishes it from xlsx_read for raw access. The verb 'filter' and resource 'LOCAL .xlsx file' are specific.

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 includes explicit 'USE WHEN' and 'DO NOT USE WHEN' sections, directing agents to use this tool when the user requests filtered rows and to avoid it for raw access (use xlsx_read) or for uploaded files.

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