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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, and the description reinforces this with "Pure computation, free" — telling the agent no network call, no auth, no cost. The hard 5,000-row limit is a concrete behavioral constraint beyond the annotations. It omits error behavior for malformed CSV or mismatched column counts, keeping it short of a 5.

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?

Three short sentences, zero filler, with the core transformation front-loaded and the limit and cost profile trailing. Nothing repeats the tool name or schema verbatim.

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?

With no output schema, the description should clarify the return shape, but "JSON rows" leaves open whether the result is an array of objects keyed by header names or arrays of values. The undocumented `separator` and unstated error behavior are also gaps for an otherwise simple two-parameter tool.

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 0%, so the description must carry the parameter burden. It clarifies the `csv` parameter's expected shape (first row = headers), but the `separator` parameter is never mentioned — no default, no accepted values, no note that it overrides comma detection.

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 ("Convert CSV ... into JSON rows") plus the header convention, which pins down the exact transformation. The direction is unambiguous relative to the inverse sibling bursia_json_to_csv, so an agent can pick between them without opening either 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 by the transformation described; there is no explicit "use this when..." statement or pointer to bursia_json_to_csv for the reverse case. The 5,000-row cap gives a useful boundary but is a limit, not a selection rule.

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