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

Annotations cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint, destructiveHint=false), and the description adds substantial context they do not: the 0.50 USDC cost, the 402/PAYMENT-REQUIRED challenge, and the PAYMENT-SIGNATURE header retry flow. It also discloses the return contents (cleaned CSV plus before/after quality checks and per-column stats) despite there being no output schema. This is exactly the auth/payment disclosure that annotations cannot carry.

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?

Front-loaded with purpose, then usage, then payment mechanics — a sensible order, and every sentence carries information. The inline 'Input: {...}' example duplicates what the schema already states, and the abrupt shift into Japanese for the pricing section hurts 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?

For a payment-gated tool with no output schema, the description supplies the missing pieces: the return payload shape, the cost, and the exact two-step payment handshake. An agent has everything needed to invoke it correctly on the first try.

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 100%, so the schema already documents both `data` (with its 60,000-char limit) and the `format` enum. The description's 'Input: {"data": "<csv text>"}' merely restates the required parameter and omits `format` entirely, adding no syntax or format detail beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies.

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 ('Cleans a CSV/TSV/JSON table') and enumerates the concrete operations (dedupe, drop empty rows, trim whitespace), so the agent knows exactly what transformation happens. It does not differentiate itself from the sibling csv-json, which an agent might reasonably confuse it with.

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?

'Call it before analysing or importing messy tabular data' gives a clear precondition for use. There is no explicit when-not or named alternative (e.g. when to use csv-json instead), so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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