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

Annotations cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, closed-world), so the description's real contribution is the order-dependence of the cleanups array and the fact that per-cleanup replacement counts are returned — meaningful behavior not in the structured fields. It does not say what happens if text exceeds 50,000 characters or if a cleanup name is unknown, which keeps it short of 5.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the action and scope, then the ordering rule and return shape. Slight redundancy in re-listing enum values already present in the schema keeps it from a 5.

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 two-parameter, closed-world tool with annotations covering safety and no output schema, the description says enough: inputs, order semantics, size cap, and return value. Only edge-case behavior (oversized text, invalid cleanup) is left unspecified.

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%, but the description compensates well: it names all eight enum values, states that order matters ('in the order given'), and restates the 50,000-character cap on the text parameter. The enum ordering semantics are genuinely additive beyond the raw schema.

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 ('Run ReplaceKit cleanups on text'), names the scope limit (50,000 characters), and enumerates exactly which cleanups exist. This is unambiguous and clearly distinct from the sibling formula tools, which operate on Google Docs/Sheets rather than raw pasted text.

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?

Usage is implied by the title ('Clean pasted text') and the description, but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, nor any reference to alternatives. With no overlapping sibling, the omission is low-risk but still a gap.

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