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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it only discloses one trait: cell contents are discarded (not returned). It says nothing about permissions, whether this is a read-only check, what the output verdict is, or how it behaves on malformed input.

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?

At five words it is terse but under-specified rather than concise — brevity that removes needed meaning. There is no front-loaded statement of purpose, scope, or result that a caller could act on.

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?

A 9-parameter, zero-annotation, no-output-schema tool is described in five words, with no explanation of what is checked, what is returned, or how the many unrelated-looking parameters are used. The description is far too thin for the tool's actual surface area.

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 100%, which sets the baseline at 3 even though the description names no parameters. Notably the description never reconciles the nine heterogeneous params (ref, url, city, feed, host, json, path, query, zone) with a 'TSV column count' purpose, leaving an unexplained mismatch, but the schema itself documents each 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 fragment 'TSV column count, cells discarded' is a noun phrase rather than a clear verb+resource, and it sits awkwardly against the name 'tsv-ok' (a boolean check) which suggests an OK/fail verdict rather than a count. It gives no differentiation from the many sibling shape-checkers (validate-json, domain-shape, file-path-ok), so an agent cannot tell what uniquely distinguishes this tool.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no reference to any alternative tool. An agent gets zero routing information about when tsv-ok is the right choice over the other 29 siblings.

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