validate_unit_rows

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

The description states 'reject' but does not clarify whether this deletes rows, filters output, or returns error messages. With no annotations provided, the tool's behavioral traits (e.g., safety, side effects) are entirely undisclosed.

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?

The description is concise (single sentence) but lacks structure. It does not front-load key information beyond the purpose, and every word is necessary, yet important details are missing.

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?

Given 3 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It does not explain how the tool behaves (e.g., whether it modifies data or returns errors), what the output looks like, or how 'text_fields' affects rejection logic.

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 'expected_unit_or_pair' is hinted at in the description. The 'rows' and 'text_fields' parameters are not explained. Since the schema has 0% description coverage, the description fails to compensate, leaving the agent uncertain about parameter roles.

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 uses a specific verb ('reject') and resource ('structured rows') and clearly states the criteria for rejection (incompatible with expected unit, currency, or currency pair). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'resolve_units' which likely perform conversion rather than validation.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'resolve_units' or 'reconcile_time_series'. The description does not indicate prerequisites or conditions that would trigger its use.

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