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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, confirming this is a safe, non-mutating operation. The description adds that it operates on a table string and lists operations, but does not describe return format or edge cases.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence that lists all main actions without any unnecessary words. Very efficient.

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?

With 5 parameters at 0% schema description coverage and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It leaves the 'format' parameter and the expected input format for 'data' completely unexplained, which is critical for correct invocation.

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 explain parameters. It only vaguely mentions operations that map to some boolean parameters (trim, dedupe, drop_empty_rows) but does not clarify the 'format' parameter or how 'data' is structured. Most parameters remain undocumented.

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 states specific operations (trim, drop empty rows, dedupe) on a clear resource (a table string). It distinguishes itself from siblings like convert_table and column_stats, though it doesn't explicitly name them.

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 this tool is for cleaning table data, but does not state when to use it versus alternatives like column_stats or convert_table. It lacks explicit when/when-not guidance.

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