Dietary Check Contaminant Monitoring Import

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and the description's 'Validate' aligns with read-only behavior. However, it adds no extra context such as success/failure behavior, prerequisites, or limitations, so it neither exceeds nor contradicts the annotations.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundant phrasing. Every word contributes to the core meaning.

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?

The tool has a moderately complex nested request with multiple parameters and an output schema, but the description only covers the basic action. It does not explain how the parameters interact, what 'governed' records mean, or which fields are essential, leaving the agent under-informed about the validation process.

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% and the description provides no parameter information. The schema contains a nested request object with 7 properties (e.g., csvText, jurisdiction, contaminantFamily) whose names are somewhat transparent, but the description does not compensate for the lack of detail, leaving parameter meaning ambiguous.

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 'Validate' and identifies the resource as 'contaminant-monitoring CSV input', further narrowing scope by specifying validation against 'governed occurrence and analytical-method evidence records'. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling export/lookup tools.

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 explicit when-to-use or alternatives are mentioned. Usage is implied by the tool name and context as the step to validate a CSV before import, but the description does not provide direct guidance or exclusions.

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