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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool runs locally (no network), does not rely on an LLM, and caps depth/size for safety. These are valuable behavioral traits beyond what the schema reveals.

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 clean sentences: first states the purpose, second adds safety and operational context. No fluff, front-loaded, every word earns its place.

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 conversion tool, the description covers purpose, behavior, and safety. It doesn't detail error handling or exact return formatting, but the output is inferred as TypeScript interfaces, which is sufficient for the tool's complexity.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds nuance by mentioning the input can be a JSON string or object, which is not fully captured by the schema's 'string' type. It also hints at depth/size limits that affect parameter handling.

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 clearly states the action ('infer') and the resource ('JSON string or object') with a specific output (TypeScript interfaces). It distinguishes the tool from all sibling utilities, which are unrelated conversion/formatting 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?

'Local, no LLM. Caps depth/size for agent safety.' provides context on when to use it (offline, deterministic, safe for agents) without explicit exclusions or alternative tool names. The usage context is clear, but no 'when not to use' is stated.

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