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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral detail by listing transformations and stating that it returns cleaned rows and a report, but it does not disclose defaults (e.g. dedupe/trim/drop-empty-rows are on by default), idempotence, or what the report contains.

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 tight sentences, front-loading the operation list and then the return value. Every phrase maps to an actual capability and there is no filler, though the return-value sentence could be merged.

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?

This is a complex tool with a nested options object, two input modes (csv vs rows), and no output schema, yet the description is a single high-level sentence. It omits how to control the listed transformations, the input limits (already in the schema but not surfaced), and the difference between the two input parameters.

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 only 33%, so the description must compensate for parameter meaning, and it does not. It never mentions the csv, rows, or options parameters by name, nor the nested options such as output mode, dateOrder, defaultCountry, or column targeting.

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 specific verb (clean) and resource (CSV or table), and enumerates the transformations performed. It is clearly distinct from siblings like clean_text or validate_emails by operating on whole tabular data, though it does not explicitly say so.

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 scope 'CSV or table' implies when the tool is appropriate, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no routing away from similar tools such as validate_emails or parse_phone even though those operations overlap with what this tool does internally.

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