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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds a genuinely non-obvious behavioral trait -- 'preserving number tokens' -- warning that numeric literals will not be coerced or reformatted, which is exactly the kind of context annotations cannot convey.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler; every clause (the three actions, the resource, the number-token caveat) carries information. Nothing is repeated from the schema or annotations.

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?

Complexity is low, an output schema exists so return values need no explanation, and annotations cover the safety/idempotency profile. The remaining gap is the ambiguous 'sort' parameter, but the description plus structured fields are sufficient to invoke the tool correctly.

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 partially does: naming format/minify/validate gives meaning to the 'action' enum beyond the bare values. However, 'sort' (keys vs values? ordering?) and 'indent' applicability are left entirely undocumented, so only one of four parameters is clarified.

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 set (format, minify, validate) against a specific resource (JSON text), which is unambiguous. No sibling tool does JSON processing, so the scope is inherently distinguished, though the description does not need to route anywhere.

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 three modes are named but there is no guidance on when to pick format vs minify vs validate, no prerequisites, and no when-not-to-use context. The agent must infer all selection logic from the action enum in the schema.

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