validate_workbook

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

The description explicitly discloses that the tool is read-only, which is the key behavioral trait. It also clearly states what it checks (sheet existence and expected cell existence), giving the agent a concrete behavioral model. No annotations are present, so the description carries the burden; it does so reasonably well.

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 two short sentences with no filler. It front-loads the purpose and adds the read-only trait as a compact second sentence. Every word earns its place.

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 presence of an output schema, the description does not need to explain return values. It covers the tool's purpose, core inputs, and its read-only nature, which is enough for an agent to invoke it. It falls short only by not placing the tool in the broader workflow context or clarifying the expected_cells format, but those are minor gaps.

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 almost no descriptions (only titles/types), so the description must compensate. It adds meaning by explaining that sheet_name and expected_cells are checked for existence, but it does not define the expected cell format (e.g., 'A1', 'B2'). This leaves ambiguity about how to pass expected_cells.

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 ('Validate') and the resource ('a workbook sheet') and immediately defines the scope: existence of the sheet and of expected cells. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like read_excel_metadata or data_quality_report.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention, for example, that data_quality_report should be used for value-level checks or that read_excel_metadata is for metadata. The read-only hint suggests a pre-flight check, but this is not explicit.

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