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

Annotations cover the safety profile (readOnly=false, destructive=false, openWorld=false, idempotent=false). The description adds genuinely useful traits beyond them: a hard 100-row-per-call limit and non-aborting per-row failure handling, which materially affects how an agent batches and interprets results.

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 with the core action and the notable constraint both front-loaded. No filler, though the row-cap and failure semantics could be slightly more separated for scanability.

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-value explanation is unnecessary, and the description covers the key behavioral surprises (batch cap, partial-failure results, list attachment). For a non-idempotent mutation with no required destructive warnings, this is largely complete.

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 75%, so most parameters are documented structurally (workspaceId, importedFrom, rows). The description adds meaning to leadListId ('optionally attaching successful rows to one lead list'), but does not elaborate on row field semantics or the workspaceId resolution logic. Baseline 3 fits.

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: 'Import parsed CSV lead rows into private workspace leads.' The 'parsed CSV lead rows' phrasing implicitly distinguishes it from the sibling campaignstack_import_external_leads, though it never names that alternative. An agent can tell what it does without opening the schema.

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 implies usage (importing already-parsed CSV rows, with an optional lead-list attachment) but gives no explicit when-to-use vs when-not guidance, nor does it point to campaignstack_import_external_leads for the non-CSV path. The 100-row cap and per-row failure semantics give operational context but not routing.

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