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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses the payment model (x402, 0.02 USDC on Base, pay-per-use), which is genuine behavioral context about cost/access. But it leaves key behaviors unspecified: how 'cleaning' resolves empties (drop vs fill), whether the original is mutated, and what output is returned.

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 compact segments: the action and its targets front-loaded, then the input format, then the pricing note. No filler and nothing buried.

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 single-parameter, no-output-schema utility, the description covers what it does, what input it accepts, and its cost, which is most of what an agent needs to invoke it. The main residual gap is the exact semantics of the cleaning operations and the return format, which is minor for a tool this simple.

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 100%, but the schema's own parameter description is the useless placeholder 'service input'. The description fills that gap by clarifying that input accepts either a URL or raw CSV text, which materially helps an agent format the call. That is real added value beyond the structured field.

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?

Names a specific verb (limpia/clean) and resource (CSV) and enumerates the concrete target problems (empties, duplicates, headers), so an agent knows exactly what operation is performed. It does not differentiate from siblings, but no obvious CSV-cleaning sibling exists in the list, so the scope is unambiguous.

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?

It implies usage by stating the acceptable input forms (URL or raw CSV), which helps an agent decide it can pass either. However, there is no explicit when-to-use vs when-not guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives among siblings such as destilar-tables or extract-json.

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