xlsx_value_counts

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, non-destructive, idempotent. Description adds: excludes nulls by default, include_nulls parameter, returns markdown table, sorted desc with percentage. This goes beyond annotations to specify exact behavior and output format.

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?

Very concise, front-loaded with core functionality, uses clear sections (USE WHEN, DO NOT USE WHEN). Every sentence adds value, no fluff.

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?

For a simple value_counts tool, the description covers purpose, usage context, null handling, sort order, output format. No output schema is needed as return value described. Complete for expected use.

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 partially compensates by mentioning column and include_nulls. However, it does not describe file_b64 (how to supply the file) or options like header_row, sheet, top_n. Users must infer these from parameter names or tool context.

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?

Clearly states it performs value_counts on one column of a local xlsx file, counts unique values sorted by frequency descending with percentage. Distinguishes from sibling xlsx_aggregate by specifying it's for single-column distribution, not groupby aggregations.

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?

Explicitly provides USE WHEN conditions (distributions, frequency) and DO NOT USE WHEN cases (groupby aggregations, upload/attached files). Directs to alternative tool xlsx_aggregate for multi-column aggregations.

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