actuals_import

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose two meaningful traits: provenance is retained and row-level validation errors are preserved rather than aborting the import. It says nothing about whether files are written to disk (the 'out' param hints at it), overwrite behavior, idempotency, or permission requirements.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; every clause adds information (source types, provenance, error retention). It is efficient, though the terseness borders on under-specification for a tool with eight parameters.

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?

For an 8-parameter tool with a nested object, zero schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description leaves too much unknown: what 'mapping' and 'quality' control, what 'out' does, and how validation errors are surfaced to the caller. The complexity clearly outstrips the description.

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% across 8 parameters, including a nested 'mapping' object and ambiguous fields like 'quality', 'source', and 'date'. Only 'file' and 'source_type' are inferable from the prose/enum; the remaining six parameters are undefined anywhere, and the description does not compensate.

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?

Specific verb ('Normalize') plus a concrete resource class (local ads/email/website/CRM/survey CSV/JSON exports) makes the operation distinguishable from generic import tools. However, it never addresses the obvious overlap with the sibling tool 'ads_import', leaving ambiguity about which one handles ads data.

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?

The enumerated source types imply the domain of use, but there is no explicit when-to-use, no exclusion, and no pointer to alternatives. With a sibling named 'ads_import' sitting in the same list, the absence of routing guidance is a real gap.

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