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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so safety behavior is covered. The description adds that it validates (i.e., can reject input) and clarifies the tool is not an evaluation/execution step, but says nothing about what validation failures look like or what the canonical output contains. Adequate but modest added value over the annotations.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core verb/resource and output, then the negative scope, then the usage trigger. No filler or redundancy.

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 two-parameter, read-only, idempotent tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, scope, and trigger well. The remaining gap is minor: it doesn't hint at the return shape (e.g., the canonical context object) or what a validation error yields, but nothing critical for invoking the tool is missing.

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 50%: the required 'csv' parameter is documented, but 'filename' is not described in the schema or the description. The phrase 'field/value or single-row CSV export' does add real meaning about the accepted CSV shape beyond the generic 'Business context CSV text' schema text, which keeps this above a pure baseline.

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 specific verbs (validate, normalize), the input resource (structured business-context CSV), and the output target (Causara's canonical economic context). The negation 'does not evaluate or execute an AI action' implicitly separates it from the evaluate_agent_action sibling, though it never names it directly.

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?

Gives a clear triggering condition: 'Use it when source data is available as a field/value or single-row CSV export.' It also carves out the negative case (not for evaluating or executing actions). No explicit sibling routing, but the context is sufficient to select the tool.

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