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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose meaningful mechanics — the two type families, example syntaxes, and that per-field 'blank' controls null probability — but omits row limits, output format behavior, auth needs, and reproducibility guarantees (seed) that an agent would want before calling.

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?

Well front-loaded: the core action leads, followed by the type taxonomy and the optional blank modifier. Two sentences with little waste, though the parenthetical type list is denser than needed.

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 dataset-generation tool with nested field objects, no annotations, and no output schema, the description covers the schema mechanics adequately but leaves out enough (usage vs siblings, output shape, count bounds) that an agent could still invoke it suboptimally.

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 coverage is 75%, so most parameters are already documented. The description expands the 'type' examples (enum:, date:, de.iban) beyond the schema's inline examples, adding marginal clarity, and restates the 'blank' semantics the schema already gives. It says nothing about seed, count, or format, so the 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 — 'Generate rows from a custom schema' — and the body explains it mixes generic types with country-accurate fields. The 'custom schema' qualifier implicitly separates it from sampuli_generate (which likely uses preset schemas), but it never names that sibling, so the contrast is left to inference.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use guidance and no mention of the alternatives. Siblings sampuli_generate, sampuli_list_types, and sampuli_list_countries are all plausibly relevant, yet the description gives no condition for choosing this tool over them.

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