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

No annotations provided, so the description carries the burden. It mentions the cost (~$0.001 in KAS) and input limit (max_words), but does not disclose idempotency, error handling, or side effects. The cost detail adds value.

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. Every word earns its place, and the key information (action, inputs, constraint, cost) is front-loaded.

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 no output schema, no parameter descriptions in schema, and 3 parameters, the description is incomplete. It omits the output format, error conditions, and detailed parameter usage (e.g., required fields, text vs URL rules).

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 the description must compensate. It states 'summarize text or a public URL' and mentions max_words, but does not clarify the relationship between the 'url' and 'text' parameters (mutually exclusive? both optional?), nor their expected formats.

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 'Summarize' and the resources (text or public URL), along with a key constraint (max_words). However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'extract' or 'read_url', though the action is distinct enough.

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 basic usage (summarize text/URL with max_words) but offers no guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives, no exclusions, and no prerequisites.

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