analyze_csv

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

Despite no annotations, the description thoroughly discloses behavioral traits: supported file formats (csv, xls, xlsx), fuzzy column matching with examples, and return structure including meta.columns_detected. No contradictions.

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 well-structured with clear sections and front-loaded purpose. It could be slightly more concise (e.g., reduce redundancy in examples), but every sentence adds value.

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 the tool's moderate complexity, the description covers all essential aspects: supported sources, fuzzy matching, parameter details, and return shape reference. No output schema needed as return behavior is fully described in terms of a sibling tool.

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?

With 0% schema coverage, the description compensates fully by explaining each parameter in an 'Args' section: csv_path as local path or URL, product_name as optional header, market as optional tag with default. Adds meaning beyond schema titles.

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 explicitly states it analyzes any review CSV/Excel, not just Amazon, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings by mentioning bypassing the Shulex VOC API and supporting non-Amazon sources.

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 description provides a clear 'Use this when:' section with three explicit conditions: product not on Amazon, have a reviews file from another source, want to bypass the API. This offers direct guidance on when to use and implies alternatives.

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