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

With no annotations, the description bears full responsibility. It mentions it is a diff and costs money, but does not disclose whether it is read-only, destructive, or other behavioral traits. 'Compact' is vague.

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 very concise, a single sentence that includes the key purpose and cost. However, the '[Dev]' prefix adds no value and could be removed. It is front-loaded with purpose.

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 2-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is somewhat complete. It lacks details on output format, limitations (line-level, text only), and cost implications. Adequate but not thorough.

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%, so the description must compensate. It only refers to 'two texts' without explaining that 'before' and 'after' correspond to original and modified texts. Parameter names are self-explanatory, but the description adds no extra meaning.

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 'Compact line-level diff between two texts', clearly identifying it as a diff tool for texts at line level. It distinguishes from other text tools like text_stats or tldr_text which have different purposes.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives like text_stats or any other diff methods. The cost mention is a usage constraint but does not help in selecting between tools.

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