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

With no annotations, the description carries full behavioral burden, but it omits critical details: whether input is CSV text or a file path, where output files are written, whether the operation is read-only or destructive, and what is returned. It only conveys the high-level transformation.

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, front-loaded sentence with no redundant or filler content. Every word contributes to stating the core operation.

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?

Given four parameters, no annotations, no output schema, and only 50% schema description coverage, the description is insufficient. It does not explain the expected input format, output destination, side effects, or how the two split modes operate in practice.

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 description implicitly links 'N chunks' to the chunks parameter and 'files of N rows each' to rowsPerChunk, adding some meaning beyond the schema's brief descriptions. However, it does not explain the input parameter (CSV string vs. path) or the mode parameter's two enum values, and schema coverage is only 50%.

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 a specific verb ('Split') and resource ('CSV'), and clarifies the two splitting modes (by N chunks or by N rows). It does not differentiate this tool from sibling CSV utilities (e.g., csv_parse, csv_filter), so it falls short of 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 description gives no guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives like csv_parse or csv_filter, nor does it explain when to use byChunks versus byRows. It only restates the operation.

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