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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the description does not need to restate the read-only nature. The description adds the fact that the text is configurable, but it duplicates the parameter ranges already present in the schema. It does not disclose optional behavioral traits such as randomness or output formatting, but with annotations covering the safety profile, the description is adequate.

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?

The description is two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and followed by parameter specifics. Every word earns its place; there is no fluff or repetition of information beyond the concise parameter enumeration. It is appropriately sized for a simple generation tool.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (3 optional parameters, no nested objects) and the presence of both an output schema and safety annotations, the description is complete. It covers the purpose and use cases, and the parameter details are fully provided in the schema. The description does not need to explain return values because an output schema exists.

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 schema has 100% parameter description coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description repeats the parameter ranges ('paragraphs (1–10), sentences per paragraph (1–20), approximate words per sentence (3–30)') without adding any new semantics beyond what the schema already provides. It does not explain parameter interactions or edge-case behavior.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Generate Lorem Ipsum placeholder text.' It clearly states the tool's function and distinguishes it from all siblings, as no other tool generates placeholder text. The use cases are specific and make the purpose immediately understandable.

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?

The description provides concrete use cases ('for UI mockups, design prototypes, or test data population'), which gives clear context for when to use the tool. While it does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, the uniqueness of the tool among siblings makes this less critical. The guidance is sufficient for an AI agent to select it appropriately.

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