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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable context beyond this: it specifies input is a 'bounded CSV sample' and includes the cost of $1.50 USDC via x402. While it doesn't detail output format or input mechanics, it enriches the behavior profile with pricing and scope.

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 sentence that packs the core function plus a pricing note. It is front-loaded with the verb 'Profile' and leaves no wasted words, earning a perfect score for conciseness.

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?

The tool has no output schema and no detailed input schema, yet the description omits what the result looks like (e.g., report, score, or table) and how the CSV is supplied. While it lists what is checked, an agent is left uncertain about the contract for invocation, so the description is minimally adequate but not fully complete.

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 zero parameters, the schema provides no semantic meaning, and the baseline is 4. The description explains what the tool does with the input (profile a CSV sample), effectively conveying the tool's purpose since there are no parameters to document.

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 clearly states the tool's function: 'Profile a bounded CSV sample for missing cells, duplicate rows, inconsistent widths, and column coverage.' This uses a specific verb (profile) and resource (bounded CSV sample) with enumerated quality dimensions, making it distinct from sibling audit tools like json-quality or content-diff.

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 clear context that the tool is for profiling a bounded CSV sample, implying it should be used when assessing CSV data quality. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives among the sibling tools, such as data-cleanup-plan or structured-data-transform.

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