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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds a genuine behavioral caveat by bounding the result's authority ('not full validation or semantic approval'), but it says nothing about what the preview actually returns or whether repeated calls are stable in practice.

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?

Two short sentences with the purpose front-loaded and no filler. It is efficient, though the caveat sentence could be folded in more tightly.

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?

With zero schema documentation on a nested target_schema object and no output schema, the description should carry more weight than it does. It never describes the proposed mapping result or the expected structure of the input, leaving real ambiguity for a non-trivial tool.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0% for two required parameters, one of which is a free-form nested object. The description does not explain what upload_id refers to or what shape target_schema must take, so an agent gets no meaning beyond the bare property names.

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 gives a specific verb and resource: 'Propose field mappings for an uploaded flat feed.' That is enough to separate it from upload_supplier_feed and approve_supplier_feed_profile, though it never names those siblings explicitly.

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 second sentence ('Preview is not full validation or semantic approval') implies this is a pre-approval, exploratory step, which is useful context. However, it does not say when to call this versus quote_supplier_import or start_supplier_import, nor does it state prerequisites such as an existing upload.

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