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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the 50k character limit and the 50 sats per call cost, which are useful behavioral traits. However, it does not disclose whether the operation is read-only, sends data externally, or what happens if the limit is exceeded.

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 extremely concise, comprising two short sentences. The first sentence front-loads the purpose, and the second adds cost information. Every word contributes value, with no filler or redundancy.

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 tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is mostly complete: it covers purpose, input limit, and cost. However, it does not describe the return value (presumably a summary) or handle edge cases like exceeding the character limit. This is a minor gap for a tool of this simplicity.

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?

The schema provides a description for the 'text' parameter ('Text to summarize'), achieving 100% coverage, which gives a baseline of 3. The description adds the constraint 'up to 50k characters,' which provides meaningful semantic information beyond the schema by setting a size limit on the input.

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 tool's function: AI summarization of text. It identifies the resource (text) and the action (summarization), and the character limit distinguishes it from other text-processing tools like sentiment or translation.

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 implies usage for summarizing text but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like verity_sentiment or verity_translate. No exclusion criteria or alternative suggestions are provided, but the character limit and cost give some context for decision-making.

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