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

Annotations already establish readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world behavior, so the description only needs to add context. It does: the output is deliberately nonsensical filler and involves no fetching of articles or documents, which calibrates what the agent should expect to receive. Determinism via the seed is left to the schema, keeping this short of a 5.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the core capability, then usage routing, then output expectation. Slight overlap between 'words, sentences or paragraphs' here and the units enum in the schema, but nothing is padded or redundant enough to hurt.

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 low-complexity, zero-required-parameter generator with no output schema, the description covers what it produces, when to use it, and what it does not do. Annotations carry the safety profile, so no essential information for invoking it correctly is missing; only return-shape detail is unaddressed, which is minor for filler text.

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 the schema already defines seed, count (1-8, default 3) and the units enum. The description's 'bounded' hints at the count ceiling and it names the three unit types, but it adds no format or interaction detail (e.g., how seed affects output) beyond the schema. 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?

Specific verb + resource ('Generate bounded lorem ipsum text') with explicit output scope: placeholder words, sentences or paragraphs. It also distinguishes itself from neighbors by stating the content is nonsensical sample text rather than fetched documents or real data, so an agent can separate it from siblings like generate-fake-data or generate-prompt.

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?

It states the use case ('for visual mocks') and an explicit negative case with an alternative ('For real editorial text, use a writing model instead'). The alternative is an external model rather than a named sibling tool, so routing guidance across this server's tools is absent, but when-to-use and when-not-to-use are both present.

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