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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains meaningful edge-case behavior: scanning up to 20 non-empty rows and ignoring delimiters inside double quotes. It does not describe the output format or behavior when delimiters are ambiguous, but the core behavior is transparent.

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 a single, tightly worded sentence that front-loads the main action and includes the most important constraints without unnecessary detail.

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?

The tool has no output schema, no annotations, and only one parameter, so the description must carry more weight. It covers the input scope and key parsing behavior, but does not explain what the tool returns, how ambiguous cases are resolved, or what happens when no delimiter is found. These are relevant gaps for a detection tool.

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?

The schema only documents a string 'input' with a maxLength, providing no semantic detail. The description compensates partially by implying that input is text consisting of rows with delimiters and quoted content, but it does not explicitly describe the parameter's role or format beyond that.

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 clearly identifies the tool's action ('Detect') and the specific resource (comma, semicolon, tab, or pipe delimiters). It also distinguishes the tool from its sibling normalization/filename tools, since none of those perform delimiter detection.

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?

Usage is implied rather than explicitly stated: the tool detects delimiters in tabular text, which suggests when it should be used. However, it does not provide explicit guidance about when to choose it over alternatives or when it would be inappropriate to use.

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