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

Annotations already mark the tool as readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds useful behavioral detail by specifying what the analysis produces. It does not contradict annotations, and it gives the agent a concrete picture of the tool's observable output.

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 that communicates the action and output details efficiently. Minor redundancy exists in repeating 'CSV Analyzer' and the trailing '[category: analyze]' tag, but overall it is appropriately compact.

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 low-complexity tool with one documented parameter, no output schema, and read-only annotations, the description is sufficiently complete. It tells the agent what inputs are expected and what analytical results will be returned, which is enough to decide on and invoke the 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?

Schema description coverage is 100% and the only parameter, 'file', is already described as 'Input file (CSV)'. The description does not add extra meaning to the parameter, so it stays at the baseline for full schema coverage.

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 the verb 'Analyse' and the resource 'CSV file', then enumerates the exact analysis outputs: row/column count, data types, null counts, and min/max/mean per column. This makes it clearly distinguishable from generic siblings like analyze_file.

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 gives no guidance about when to choose this tool over sibling analyzers, nor any exclusions. It simply states what the tool does. With many analyze_* siblings present, an agent gets no help selecting among them.

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