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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose one useful trait (comments are preserved), but says nothing about whether the input is mutated or whether a new string is returned, how invalid programs are handled, or any error behavior.

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 the key behavioral caveat (comments preserved) attached directly to the action. Nothing is wasted.

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 transformation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate but leaves gaps: what canonicalization entails, whether the return is the formatted program, and how errors surface. The agent can call it, but not confidently predict the result.

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 'program' parameter is documented nowhere. The description mentions 'the program' but adds no meaning about its expected syntax, source, or whether it is a file path, raw source text, or identifier.

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 names a clear verb (return) and resource (the program in canonical format), and the parenthetical clarifies an important output trait. It distinguishes itself reasonably from siblings like remit_check or remit_authority_diff, though it never defines what 'canonical format' concretely means.

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?

There is no guidance on when to reach for remit_format versus remit_check, remit_run_fixtures, or the other siblings, and no preconditions or exclusions are stated. The agent must infer usage purely from the tool name.

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