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, and it says almost nothing. "Includes the complete prompt, usage guide, and edge-case handling" barely hints at what a call returns, whether any side effects occur, or what exactly the optional query affects; a buyer-facing pitch replaces the disclosure an agent needs.

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 text is short but poorly structured: the first sentence is a detached slogan and the second is marketing framing. Nothing about the operational behavior is front-loaded, and every sentence serves persuasion rather than tool selection.

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?

The low structural complexity, one optional parameter and no output schema, would make a brief description sufficient, but this one never explains what the tool produces or what "clean board" means. The description leaves gaps even in a simple case.

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?

There is a single optional parameter whose schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already explains that "query" optionally scopes the analysis. The description does not mention the parameter, but here the schema does the work, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 never states a concrete action or resource that the tool operates on. "Turn expertise into output" and "clean board tool prompt pack helps restaurant and brand teams produce professional results in minutes" is promotional copy that restates the name rather than defining what the tool does, and it gives no basis for distinguishing it from the many sibling tools such as clean-analyze-tool, clean-diag-tool, clean-formula-tool, or clean-tpl-tool.

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 use this tool, when not to, or which sibling alternatives to prefer. The only audience hint, "restaurant and brand teams," is too vague to function as a selection rule in the presence of dozens of functionally adjacent clean-* tools.

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