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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It adds a cost hint (Paid ~$0.001 in KAS) but does not disclose other behaviors like data handling, rate limits, or whether it is read-only. It adds some value beyond schema but is not comprehensive.

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 extremely concise: one sentence plus a cost note. It front-loads the main purpose and each word contributes value. No unnecessary information.

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 simple tool with 2 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the basic operation and cost. However, it does not mention the expected output (rewritten text) or confirm that the entire text is rewritten. It is adequate but leaves gaps.

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 0%, so description must compensate. It mentions instruction can cover tone/format/length, which adds meaning to the parameter. However, it does not explain the 'text' parameter beyond being the input. Some semantics are added, but not exhaustive.

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 clearly states the verb 'rewrite' and the resource 'text', and specifies it is done per an instruction covering tone, format, length, etc. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like summarize or classify.

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 implies usage for rewriting text with style/format modifications, but lacks explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives (e.g., summarize, extract). No when-not or prerequisite information is provided.

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