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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful billing context ('PAID ONLY: 5 prepaid credits; production billing required') but does not describe the return format or row-shape expectations.

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 sentences with no waste: the purpose is front-loaded, and the billing constraint follows immediately. Every sentence carries relevant information.

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 one-parameter tool, the description covers purpose and billing but leaves the input row structure and the report's return shape unspecified, and there is no output schema to fill that gap.

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% and the only parameter, 'rows', has no description in the schema. The description says 'parsed CSV matrix', which hints at the input shape, but it does not specify whether rows are arrays of strings, arrays of arrays, or how field counts are compared.

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 ('Report') and resource ('ragged rows for a parsed CSV matrix'), making the core function clear. It does not explicitly differentiate from a sibling like privi_csv_profile, which keeps it from a 5.

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 phrase 'for a parsed CSV matrix' implies when the tool applies, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance or comparison with alternatives. The billing prerequisite is stated, but that is not usage selection guidance.

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