xlsx_receipt

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

Description discloses critical behavioral traits: embedded attestation in docProps/custom.xml, base64 return, honest declaration boundary (server signs caller-declared agent.name). Annotations already mark readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false; description adds context without contradiction.

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 well-structured with clear sections (overview, honesty boundary, usage guidelines). Every sentence adds value, no repetition, and the key information is front-loaded.

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 6 parameters, complex nested objects, and no output schema, the description adequately covers the tool's main purpose, return value (_meta.file_b64), and usage contexts. Some parameter details are missing, but the overall intent is clear.

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, description compensates by explaining the agent parameter's honesty boundary and mentioning file_b64 and out_path (though out_path is not in schema). It gives functional context for key parameters but omits details on covers_sheets, inputs, and workbook_handle.

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 attaches an AI-generation cryptographic receipt to an .xlsx file and distinguishes it from sibling tools like xlsx_stamp (for human-authored workbooks) and xlsx_verify_receipt (for verification).

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?

Explicit 'USE WHEN' and 'DO NOT USE WHEN' sections provide clear guidance on appropriate contexts, with an explicit alternative (xlsx_stamp) and an honesty boundary note.

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