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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses a real behavioral trait—the per-call cost of $0.005 in USDC on Base—but says nothing about permissions, whether the transformation is non-destructive, idempotency, or return format, leaving most of the profile undocumented.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence that states the action first and appends the pricing detail. No filler or redundancy, though it is terse to the point of omitting usage context.

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 full schema coverage and no output schema, the essential calling information is present. However, for a paid utility among 26 overlapping Persian-text siblings, the absence of any disambiguation or output/return behavior leaves a meaningful contextual gap.

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 the required 'text' and optional 'options' parameters are already documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level detail (e.g., what the options object keys do), so the baseline 3 applies.

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+resource pair ('Remove bidi control characters and repair RTL punctuation spacing'), which is concrete and unambiguous. It does not differentiate from possible siblings like fa_normalize, which may also touch Persian text, but the RTL-specific purpose is clear from the wording alone.

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?

No when-to-use guidance and no alternatives named, despite a large sibling set including fa_normalize and fa_digits that an agent might confuse it with. The agent must infer applicability purely from the operation described.

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