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

Beyond the readOnly/idempotent hints, the description discloses that the proposal is deterministic arithmetic with no AI, that files are not stored, that formulas/macros are never executed, and that no transformation occurs until the next step. This is rich behavioral context and is consistent with the annotations.

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?

It is a dense single paragraph, but almost every clause earns its place: formats, limits, output, determinism, pipeline step, and privacy. It is longer than strictly necessary but not padded.

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 no output schema, the description explains what the tool returns at a sufficient level and covers capacity limits, accepted formats, accepted target schemas, and side-effect behavior. An agent has enough context to select and invoke this tool correctly and to know that file_to_data_transform is the next step.

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?

Since schema coverage is 100%, the per-parameter documentation already carries the detailed meaning. The description adds value by naming supported formats, hard limits (3 MiB, 50,000 rows, 200 columns), and the built-in target schema values, which helps the agent pick valid inputs without duplicating the schema.

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 names a clear first step ('Step 1 of turning a business file into data') and specifies the resource (business files) and the exact outputs: recognized columns/types, proposed schema mapping with confidence and reason, issues, and usage limits. It distinguishes itself from the sibling file_to_data_transform by stating that nothing is carried out until that tool is called.

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?

It gives explicit context for when this tool is appropriate: inspecting a supplier price list, customer import, or order file before transformation, and it names the follow-up tool. It stops short of explicit when-not-to-use or alternative selection guidance beyond the pipeline relationship.

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