validate_csv

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does add one meaningful behavioral fact: it operates on local files and never uploads user data, which is genuinely useful trust context. However, it says nothing about whether the operation is read-only, how malformed or unreadable files are handled, or what the validation result looks like.

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 tightly written sentences with zero filler. The capability is front-loaded and the privacy constraint follows immediately, so an agent gets the essentials in the first read.

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 a simple two-parameter tool this is close to adequate, and the description usefully enumerates the checks performed. But with no annotations and no output schema, the agent is never told what a validation result contains (boolean, error list, line numbers), which is the key thing a caller needs to act on the result.

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 100%, so both filePath and delimiter are already documented in the schema. The description adds no syntax, format, or encoding detail (e.g. supported delimiters, auto-detection) beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 (validate CSV) and enumerates exactly what is validated: headers, consistent column counts, duplicate headers. That is far more than a restatement of the name. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the sibling schema_check, which an agent could plausibly confuse for structural 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?

There is no explicit when-to-use guidance and no routing to alternatives such as schema_check or find_duplicate_keys. The 'Local files only' clause is a scoping constraint rather than a usage rule, and usage must be inferred from the tool name.

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