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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description goes beyond that by disclosing that no rows are received (a meaningful privacy/data-boundary trait) and by enumerating what comes back: a proposed spec with column roles, claims, claim-writing guidance, a check catalog, and confirmation points. Since no output schema exists, that return description carries real weight.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core action and inputs, then a compact enumeration of outputs. The parenthetical about type and example value is well placed. It is dense but every clause carries information; the only cost is a slightly run-on second sentence.

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 read-only, no-output-schema tool with three parameters, the definition covers inputs, the no-rows constraint, and the full shape of the response, which is enough to invoke it correctly. What is missing is sequencing relative to the sibling audit tools, which matters given the multi-step workflow implied by prepare_script and show_audit.

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 description coverage is only 33%, so the description must compensate, and it largely does: it explains that columns come with 'optionally a type and one example value each' and characterizes figures as 'the results the person wants to publish'. Only dataset_name goes unmentioned in both schema and description, a minor omission for an obviously named 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?

The description names a specific verb and resource: it 'proposes how to read a data file for an audit' from column names plus desired published results. That is clearly distinct from show_audit or measure_in_app, though it never names those siblings to make the distinction explicit. An agent can tell what it does without opening the 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?

Usage is only implied: the tool takes column metadata and figures, so it is evidently the entry point before preparing or measuring. There is no explicit when-to-use statement, no prerequisites, and no routing to example_audits, prepare_script, or show_audit. The closing note 'It receives no rows' does implicitly tell the agent not to send data.

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