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

Annotations already provide a robust safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true), so the description does not need to restate these. It adds the price and the fact that it produces a plan, which is consistent with annotations but adds no further behavioral caveats beyond what the annotations already 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?

The description is a single, information-packed sentence that clearly states the tool's action and output, followed by a simple price line. Every word earns its place; there is no redundant phrasing or unnecessary detail.

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 is relatively simple, but without an output schema or defined parameters, the description must compensate for ambiguity. It specifies the input type (CSV/JSON) and output (a plan), but does not clarify how the data is passed (e.g., as a file, string, or object), nor the structure of the plan. This leaves room for misunderstanding during invocation.

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?

This tool has 0 defined parameters, so the baseline is 4. The input schema is open (additionalProperties: true), and the description does not document expected input properties. However, with no formal parameters, the description is not required to explain parameter semantics, and it does not contradict 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?

The description clearly states a specific verb ('Inspect'), resource ('supplied CSV or JSON'), and expected outcome ('produce a sequenced cleanup and validation plan'). It distinguishes itself from likely siblings like csv-profile or json-quality by emphasizing the production of a plan for cleanup and validation rather than just analysis.

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 implies a clear use case—when you need a structured cleanup and validation plan for CSV/JSON data—but it does not explicitly mention alternatives or conditions when not to use this tool. Given the large set of sibling tools, some explicit exclusions or comparisons would enhance guidance.

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