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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses a real behavioral trait the schema cannot express: a $0.001 USDC cost on Base via x402. But it omits other behavior an agent needs, such as whether invalid JSON errors, what the return type is, and whether processing is deterministic in ways beyond key sorting.

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 tight sentences, no redundancy, with the core action front-loaded and the cost note appended. Every clause earns its place.

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?

No annotations, no output schema, and 0% parameter coverage mean the description must do more. It covers purpose and cost adequately but leaves the input format, error behavior, and output shape unaddressed for a tool whose whole job is transforming JSON.

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% and the single parameter is an untyped empty object, so the schema conveys nothing. The description compensates partially by implying the parameter is the JSON payload to canonicalize and that keys are recursively sorted, but it never specifies whether 'value' is a string or an object, which matters for correct invocation.

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 (canonicalize), resource (JSON), the exact mechanism (recursively sorting object keys), and the intended outcomes (stable hashing, comparison, signatures). This clearly separates it from sibling utilities like hash, json-repair, and json-schema-validate, which do different things to JSON.

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 phrase 'for stable hashing, comparison and signatures' gives implied use-case context, so an agent knows why it would reach for this tool. However, it never states when NOT to use it or names an alternative (e.g., when a plain hash suffices), leaving selection between siblings to inference.

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