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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description usefully adds behavior beyond that: which duplicate is kept ('first exact match'), that it reports how many rows changed, and that a canonical URL is returned.

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 tight sentences, front-loading the purpose and dedup policy, with the output note last. Minor jargon ('evidence-bounded result') costs a little clarity but nothing is wasted.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need not be spelled out, annotations cover the safety profile, and there is only one simple input. The description supplies the remaining essentials – dedup rule and reported change count – so an agent has what it needs to call it correctly.

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?

There is one parameter ('csv') with 0% schema description coverage, so the description is the only place to add semantics. It hints at expected content (campaign/listing-export rows) but never describes the parameter's format or the 12000-char limit; the self-evident name keeps this merely adequate rather than poor.

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?

States a specific verb and resource (remove repeated rows from campaign/listing-export CSVs) and specifies the dedup policy of keeping the first exact match. The scope clearly separates it from the nearest sibling json_to_csv, though it never names that sibling 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?

By naming 'campaign or listing-export rows' the description implies the context in which to use it, so usage is inferable. However, there is no explicit when-to-use statement, no prerequisites, and no routing to or against alternatives such as json_to_csv.

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