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

Annotations cover the safety profile, so the description's job is to add context beyond them — and it does: per-call cost ($0.01 USDC), an input ceiling (20k chars), and a fixed output length (250 words). That price disclosure especially matters for a paid, openWorld tool. It still omits failure/truncation behavior for over-limit input.

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 dense sentence that front-loads what the tool does and appends the constraints that affect a call. No filler, nothing to trim.

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 one-parameter, no-output-schema tool, the description supplies purpose, input bound, output length, and cost — enough to invoke it correctly. Only edge-case behavior (input over 20k chars, empty input, non-English text) is unaddressed.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for the single 'text' parameter. It does partly by imposing the 20k-char limit, which the schema does not express (no maxLength). It says nothing about language handling or formatting expectations for 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('AI text summarization'), plus the output shape ('crisp 250-word summary'). No sibling is similar enough to require differentiation — every sibling tool does an unrelated task — so 4 is appropriate rather than 5.

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?

Usage is implied by the input bound ('any text up to 20k chars') and the price, but there is no explicit statement of when to prefer this tool, when not to use it, or what to do with text exceeding 20k chars. Minimum viable, no exclusions or alternatives.

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