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

The annotations already cover read-only, open-world, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds meaningful context beyond those annotations: the 5,000-character input ceiling, the 20-credit cost, and the fact that word counts and reduction metrics depend on the plan.

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 short and front-loads the core summarization behavior. It is slightly redundant in repeating 'Text Summarizer' at the start, but otherwise every sentence carries useful information.

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?

With only two parameters, an output schema, and annotations covering safety, the definition provides enough context to call the tool correctly. It covers input limits, summary length, and cost, though it could be fuller on language handling or alternatives.

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%, so both parameters are already documented. The description reinforces the 5,000-character text limit and the sentence-count summary length, but adds no syntax or format detail beyond what the schema provides.

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 states a specific verb and resource: it condenses raw text into concise summaries with a specified sentence count. It is clear what the tool does, but it does not distinguish itself from nearby text-processing siblings such as KeywordExtractor or TextReadabilityScore.

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 description: use it when you need to summarize text. However, it offers no explicit when-to-use guidance, no when-not-to-use guidance, and no named alternatives among the many sibling text tools.

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