read_excel_metadata

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly states 'Read-only', which is a key non-mutation guarantee, and it specifies the limited data scope ('sample rows') rather than implying a full data read. It does not mention edge cases like missing files or permission requirements, but for a simple metadata reader the provided behavioral details are adequate.

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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the action and includes the most important outputs. Every phrase earns its place, and there is no redundant or promotional language.

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?

The description is functionally complete for a simple metadata reader: it states the input type, the operation, and the key outputs, and an output schema exists to carry return-value details. It does not explicitly mention supported file formats or handling of invalid paths, but these are minor gaps given the tool's simplicity and the output schema.

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 0% parameter description coverage, so the description needed to compensate. It does not explicitly describe 'file_path', but the parameter name is self-explanatory and the description's reference to 'Excel workbook' implies the path target. This is minimally sufficient but not enriched beyond what an agent would assume.

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 a specific verb ('Read'), a clear resource ('Excel workbook'), and the exact scope of what is returned ('sheets, columns and sample rows'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling analysis and writing tools, making the tool's purpose unambiguous.

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 'Read-only' qualifier provides clear context that this tool is for inspection, not modification, and the mention of 'structure' implies it is for understanding the workbook layout before analysis. It does not explicitly name alternatives, but the sibling tool names (rolling_average, write_formulas, etc.) make the use case clear enough.

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