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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description strongly reinforces this with 'Nothing is written.' It goes beyond annotations by disclosing the three deterministic gates, the numeric-constant transcription guard, and the real import dry-run, giving the agent an accurate model of what happens before returning.

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 dense but every sentence earns its place: purpose, input limits, deterministic gates, safety guarantee, and next-step instructions. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and provides critical behavior without padding.

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?

Even with no output schema, the description tells the agent what to expect (a DRAFT mapping template plus an unmappedColumns honesty list), what safety gates apply, and how to proceed. Given the tool's moderate complexity and sibling set, this is complete enough for correct invocation and follow-through.

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?

Input schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description reinforces sampleRecords semantics as 'column → string cell' and the 1-10 constraint, but it doesn't add meaningful detail beyond what the schema already provides for notes or api_key.

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 specifies a concrete verb and resource: AI drafts a mapping template from sample records for the import_households workflow. It clearly differentiates itself from siblings by labeling the output as a DRAFT and directing the final import to import_households.

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 explicitly states the workflow context: use this tool to prepare a draft mapping, then run import_households yourself with dryRun: true over the full export. This both states when to use it and names the alternative/next step, leaving no ambiguity about its role.

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