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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the pay-per-use cost ('[x402: 0.01 USDC on Base, pay-per-use]') and implies a generative operation. It does not mention potential side effects, response format, or performance characteristics. For a simple distillation tool this is acceptable but not thorough.

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, with only two sentences and a cost tag. It front-loads the purpose and usage, and every word contributes. There is no wasted text.

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 tool with a single parameter and no output schema, the description covers the purpose, usage, and cost. It lacks details about the output format or potential limitations, but given the simplicity of the tool, it is sufficiently complete for an agent to invoke it 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?

The schema already describes the parameter as 'concepto/cosa a destilar' with 100% coverage. The description adds 'input=concept' and clarifies the output is a core principle, but this is largely redundant. The baseline of 3 is appropriate since the schema covers the meaning; the description offers marginal extra clarity.

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 action: 'Distill the irreducible essence of a concept (its core principle).' It identifies the specific verb and resource, and is not a tautology. It clearly distinguishes the core purpose from generic summarization or extraction tools.

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 says 'Use it to get the conceptual core of something,' providing clear context on when to apply it. However, it does not mention alternatives or exclusions, even though sibling tools like destilar-batch, destilar-structured-json, and destilar-tables exist. It stops short of explicit routing guidance.

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