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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses the score range, the interpretation of higher scores, and the pay-per-use cost of 0.01 USDC via x402 on Base. It omits exact response format but covers the key behavioral traits for a simple stateless scoring call.

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?

One compact sentence packs purpose, output scale, input semantics, and pricing with no redundant wording. Everything included 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?

For a single-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers what it does, what to pass, how to interpret the result, and cost. Minor missing details like exact response shape are not critical for correct invocation.

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 only describes the parameter as 'service input', which is generic. The description adds that the input should be the prompt to score, providing meaningful semantics beyond the schema. This exceeds the baseline despite 100% schema coverage.

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?

Clearly states the tool scores prompt density on a 0-100 scale and explains the direction of the score. This distinguishes it from compression-focused siblings like distilla-compress, though no sibling is explicitly named.

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?

Implies use when an agent needs to assess how much filler remains in a prompt before compression, and 'input=prompt to score' gives the call pattern. However, it does not state when not to use it or compare it to alternatives such as distilla-compress.

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