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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, closed-world, non-destructive behavior, so the bar is lower. The description still adds real value beyond them: the 20-record cap, the guarantee that no URLs are fetched, and that input is not stored — all relevant to a privacy-sensitive validation call.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the operation and scope, then data-handling constraints. Nothing repeated and nothing that does not earn 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 one-parameter, no-output-schema tool with rich annotations, the description covers purpose, limit, and data-handling guarantees. The remaining gap is that 'structural issues' is never concretized — the agent cannot tell what counts as an issue or what the response contains.

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 carry the 'csv' parameter alone. It adds meaningful constraints (product records, max 20 rows, redacted content) but never specifies shape — header row, delimiter, required columns, or how malformed input is treated within the 32,000-character limit.

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?

Specific verb + resource + scope: 'Check up to 20 CSV product records for structural issues' tells the agent exactly what operation runs and on what. The single sibling (get_purchase_link) is unrelated, so no explicit differentiation is required, but the description never states that it returns a report rather than fixing anything.

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?

Gives a clear operating context (structural validation of product CSV records) and a hard usage constraint: send only redacted data, no personal or secret fields. No alternative tools are named, but with only one unrelated sibling there is nothing to route between.

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