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

The description and title present a non-mutating preview ('Preview... no records written'), while the annotation readOnlyHint=false says the tool is not read-only; that directly conflicts with the described no-write behavior. The otherwise useful exclusions (no CSV/resume, no silent merge) cannot compensate for the contradictory safety signal.

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 compact sentences front-load the purpose and pack exclusions into a tight list. There is no filler or repeated schema 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?

With a rich nested schema, five parameters, and no output schema, the description does not say what the preview returns, how validation errors/results are presented, or how idempotency_key/metadata affect behavior. The exclusions help scope the operation, but an agent cannot predict the invocation outcome.

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 0%, so the prose must carry parameter meaning, but it only clarifies that rows must be JSON and that files are not accepted. It does not explain idempotency_key, metadata, source_label, request_id, or field semantics like pool_ids vs pool_names.

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 action and object ('Preview a structured-row Prospect CRM import') and immediately draws boundaries with exclusions ('no raw CSV/resume file reads, outreach, application conversion, source ranking, or silent person merge'). This separates it from the many preview/import/dry-run siblings.

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?

It gives clear context for use: this is the JSON-rows-only, dry-run preview path, not a raw file import or an action like outreach/conversion. It does not explicitly name the apply counterpart as an alternative, so the routing guidance is good but not exhaustive.

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