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

With no annotations, the description carries the full transparency burden. It discloses the output count (7 aphorisms), the input requirement (system description), and importantly adds pricing/ cost context '[x402: 0.05 USDC on Base, pay-per-use]'. It does not detail output shape or describe side effects, but the generative nature is clear.

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 compact and front-loaded with the core action. The 'input=system description' is slightly redundant given 'from its description', and the leading 'Distilla:' is not needed, but the overall text is still lean and informative.

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 one-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description gives enough to call: input is required, output is 7 dense aphorisms, cost is disclosed. It could clarify what exactly an 'aphorism' entails or expected return format, but the agent can proceed.

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 says 'service input', while the description adds 'input=system description', giving the parameter real semantic meaning. This is a meaningful enhancement beyond the schema.

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 states exactly what the tool does: 'generate 7 dense identity aphorisms for a system from its description.' This clears the intended verb and resource, and it clearly differentiates from siblings like distilla-compress or distilla-evocation-score which perform different distill-style tasks.

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 usage is implied through the action phrase 'generate identity aphorisms', but there is no explicit statement of when to prefer this tool over alternatives. No sibling comparisons, exclusions, or 'when not to use' guidance are provided.

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