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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full behavioral disclosure burden. It explicitly states the most critical side-effect ('Nothing is created by this call') and the mandatory consent declaration, adding meaningful behavioral context beyond the schema. It does not mention return values or follow-up behavior, but these are less critical for a preview operation.

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?

Three sentences with the key action front-loaded. The third sentence, while memorable, is slightly long-winded ('an import that cannot say why these people may be emailed is an import that does not happen') and could be tightened to 'The consent declaration is mandatory.' Overall, it is concise and well-structured.

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 tool has 6 required parameters and no output schema, so the description should clarify what the preview returns or how to follow up (e.g., calling commsharbor_contact_import_confirm). It does not mention return values, error handling, or next steps, leaving an important gap for an agent deciding whether to proceed.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add parameter-specific details beyond the schema; it merely reinforces the consent-related parameters ('consent-declared CSV') without explaining individual params. The schema already handles parameter semantics effectively.

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 and resource: 'Upload and preview a consent-declared CSV.' It further clarifies the non-mutating nature with 'Nothing is created by this call,' which distinguishes it from sibling tools like commsharbor_contact_import_confirm. This is a clear, specific, and non-tautological purpose.

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 phrase 'preview' and the explicit statement 'Nothing is created by this call' provide clear context that this tool is for pre-flight validation rather than final import. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives (e.g., 'use commsharbor_contact_import_confirm to actually import'), so it stops short of a 5.

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