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

With no annotations present the description carries the full load, and it does disclose real behavioral traits: the call is free and processes no data (i.e., side-effect-free introspection). It also enumerates the knowledge returned, which is more than a restatement of the name. It stops short of describing the output format or how to act on the values.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with what is returned and followed by the actionable 'call this first' guidance. Every clause adds information (rule types, dedup modes, step order, row cap, cost, side effects) with no filler.

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 zero-parameter, no-output-schema introspection tool, the description is sufficient: it explains what knowledge is exposed, reassures the agent there is no data-processing cost, and gives a usage trigger. Nothing needed to invoke it correctly is missing.

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 tool takes zero parameters and the schema has additionalProperties false, so there is nothing to document. Baseline 4 applies; the description correctly does not waste space on nonexistent inputs.

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 (Returns) and an enumerated resource: cleaning rules for emails/phones/URLs, dedup modes and keep strategies, step order, and max rows per call. The trailing 'Free, processes no data' cleanly separates it from the sibling clean_rows, which does process data.

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 trigger, 'Call this first if you are unsure how a field will be treated', which tells the agent when to reach for it. It never names clean_rows as the alternative or states when to skip this tool, so the routing is implied rather than complete.

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