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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond that: it detects headers, capabilities, and row count, and 'preserves schema information', clarifying that parsing is non-mutating. It does not mention failure modes, but the safety profile is well covered by 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?

The description is three short sentences with no filler: purpose, input requirement, and behavior. The most important information is front-loaded, and every sentence 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?

For a simple read-only inspection tool with an output schema and strong annotations, the description covers the main invocation requirements and behavior. It is slightly incomplete only in not explaining when to choose this tool over the audit sibling.

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%, so the description must compensate. It only says 'Supply CSV text and a source filename', which largely restates the parameter names and does not explain expected CSV formatting, source_file's role, or that source_file is optional due to its default. Minimal semantic value is added.

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 ('Inspect'), a specific resource ('structured-cabling certification CSV export'), and what it does ('Detects known headers, capabilities and row count'). It clearly conveys the tool's task, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling audit_certification_package.

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 description gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus audit_certification_package or cablecert_service_info. It implies an inspection-oriented use case from the name and title, but never states conditions, exclusions, or preferred ordering such as 'inspect before audit'.

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