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

Annotations already cover readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive, so the safety profile is free. The description adds real value beyond them: the output is trimmed/normalized text, no semantic compression occurs (filler phrases preserved), and there is a stated caveat about whitespace-significant prompts. No return-format or size-limit detail, but the behavioral contract is well communicated.

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 tight clauses, front-loaded with the core operation, then usage, then the caveat and return note. No filler. Slightly dense with semicolon packing, but every sentence earns its place.

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 no output schema, the description correctly covers the return value ('trimmed text with normalized spacing'), plus the key limitation that semantic content is untouched. For a one-parameter, low-complexity formatting tool whose annotations carry the safety profile, this is essentially complete.

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 single parameter is fully documented in the schema (100% coverage, including the 4096-character limit), so the schema carries this dimension. The description adds only an implicit sense of what the input is and does not describe input format or edge behavior beyond what the schema states; baseline 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?

States a specific operation (normalize prompt whitespace and line breaks) on a specific resource (prompt text), and immediately disambiguates from what 'minify' might imply by saying filler phrases are not removed. That distinction also cleanly separates it from the minify-css/minify-html/minify-js siblings without needing to name them.

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?

Gives an explicit usage context ('use to compact formatting before calling a model') and a caution about when the operation is risky ('review prompts where whitespace carries meaning'). It stops short of naming the alternative to reach for in those whitespace-sensitive cases, so it is clear context without full exclusion routing.

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