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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, openWorld), yet the description adds substantial non-obvious behavior: absolute paths are local-backend-only, hosted backends refuse them and return guidance, and the loader ASSUMES volts so a µV-native CSV reads 1e6x too large (with the unitsScale remedy). These are exactly the operational gotchas annotations cannot convey.

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 the summary of what is returned, then the path-resolution rule, then the when-to-use rationale and units caveat. Every paragraph carries information, though it is on the longer side and the parenthetical asides could be tightened.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need not be documented, and annotations carry the safety profile; the description nonetheless covers purpose, path semantics, backend constraints, and the units pitfall. Nothing an agent needs to call this correctly 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?

With one parameter at 100% schema coverage, the baseline is 3, but the description goes beyond the schema by explaining the consequence of each path shape — absolute means no upload needed but local-only, relative is the value data.upload returns and works anywhere. That adds actionable meaning rather than restating the schema.

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 (exploratory summary / inspect) and resource (EEG file) and enumerates the supported formats (.edf/.bdf/.mat/.csv/.tsv/.txt/.h5) plus the actual content of the summary (channels, sampling rate, trial/class balance, per-channel µV stats, band powers, PSD). This lets an agent distinguish it from data.inspect_dataset without opening either schema.

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?

Explicitly tells the agent to inspect data BEFORE building pipelines and explains why (class balance drives stratification, flatlined channels signal a montage/reference problem). It also clarifies which path form to use on which backend. It does not, however, name sibling alternatives like data.inspect_dataset, so it stops short of the top tier.

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