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

The only annotation is destructiveHint=false, yet the description discloses real behavior: fill-only-by-phone semantics that never overwrite hand-entered values, idempotent re-import, a 500-row limit, count-only return, and that skipped output is limited to row numbers plus a masked preview. It also warns that phone-less leads cannot be attributed to future signups, which is a substantive constraint an agent could not otherwise infer.

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?

Front-loaded with the preconditions and formats, then the workflow chain, then the return-shape caveats; almost no filler. The semicolon-chained clauses are dense and the leading '登录;' reads as a dangling note, which slightly hurts scanability.

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 one parameter, no output schema, and only a single annotation, the description carries the full burden and does so: input formats, limits, dedupe semantics, return shape, and the follow-on verification steps are all covered. Nothing an agent needs to call this correctly is missing.

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% and the single 'text' property has no description, but the description compensates by defining the accepted payload (pasted CSV/TSV/Excel), headerless input support, and how unknown columns are handled. It also references a headerMap the caller must surface to the user, adding meaning not present in 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?

Names a specific verb+resource (import broker leads) and immediately narrows the input form: pasted CSV/TSV/Excel tables, optional headers, unknown columns go to notes, 500-row cap. This is clearly distinguishable from the single-record siblings create_broker_lead / update_broker_lead.

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?

Gives an explicit pipeline ('organize OCR/chat/spreadsheet → this tool → read headerMap back to user for confirmation → verify with list_broker_leads → scan_broker_matches'), so the agent knows exactly what precedes and follows it. It does not explicitly state when to prefer create_broker_lead for a single lead, so it stops short of full alternative coverage.

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