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

Discloses behavioral details beyond annotations: case-insensitivity, handling across line breaks, and the return of cleaned text plus removed words. The 'Read-only with no side effects' statement reinforces readOnlyHint and clarifies no external writes, adding value beyond structured data.

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?

Three concise sentences, each with a distinct purpose: action, safety, and usage context. No redundant or irrelevant information, making it efficient and well-structured.

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 no output schema, the description covers all necessary aspects: purpose, return value, read-only nature, and usage context. It is complete for an agent to select and invoke correctly.

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 input schema fully describes the only parameter ('text') with 100% coverage. The tool description does not add extra semantic detail about the parameter itself, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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: 'Remove duplicate adjacent words' with specific details (case-insensitive, across line breaks). It distinguishes itself from siblings by positioning as the fix tool after check_text reports duplicates, while listing other issue types as report-only.

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?

Explicitly states when to use: 'Use after check_text reports duplicate words' and implicitly when not to use: 'other issue types are report-only and have no auto-fix.' This provides clear guidance relative to alternatives.

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