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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive. The description adds meaningful context: best-effort parsing, a 500-row cap, and the pricing/auth model ($0.01/call over x402, prepaid header, 1 free call/day, no API key). This goes beyond the annotations with operational constraints.

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-loads the core transformation ('Messy bank export → one row shape') then packs constraints efficiently. Slightly dense with pricing/billing detail, but each clause carries information an agent or caller needs.

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?

Covers input formats, supported headers, row limit, best-effort nature, and pricing/auth. Output schema exists so return shape needn't be explained. Complete enough to invoke correctly, though aliases ('TR aliases') are under-explained.

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?

Only one parameter (text) with 100% schema coverage, so baseline is 3. The description clarifies that text is CSV content in multiple delimiter formats, adding minor meaning over 'CSV text' but the schema already documents it.

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: parse a bank CSV and map headers into a unified schema. It names the concrete input formats (comma/semicolon/tab, quoted fields) and supported header fields, making the tool's function unambiguous even among many 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?

Implies when to use it (messy bank export normalization) but offers no explicit exclusions or alternatives. Sibling list has no direct CSV-normalize competitor, so differentiation is less critical, but usage context is only implied.

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