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

Annotations cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), and the description adds substantive behavior beyond them: absolute paths fail on hosted backends and return guidance instead of data, relative upload paths work everywhere, and the loader assumes volts so µV-native CSVs read 1e6x too large. These are exactly the failure modes an agent needs pre-warned.

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?

Purpose and contents are front-loaded in the first sentence, and the path/backend guidance follows logically. It is dense with useful content, though the units note and backend caveat could be tightened slightly without loss.

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 no explanation, yet the description still previews the summary contents. Combined with the units pitfall, backend restrictions, and preprocessing motivation, an agent has everything needed to call this correctly on either backend.

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%, so the baseline is 3, but the description contributes real meaning beyond the schema wording by spelling out the consequence of each path form (disk read vs. uploaded file) and the backend-dependent failure behavior. The only redundancy is repeating absolute/relative, which the schema already states.

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 ('Exploratory summary of an EEG file') and enumerates exactly what the summary contains (channels, sampling rate, trial/class balance, per-channel µV stats, band powers, PSD). The file-level scope is clearly separable from the sibling data.inspect_dataset and data.upload.

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 says to run this BEFORE building pipelines and explains why ('class balance drives stratification choices, and flatlined channels mean a montage/reference problem'). It also gives the alternative path when a backend refuses absolute paths: 'upload the file first or switch to a local backend.'

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