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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false. The description adds 'Pure computation, free', confirming no side effects or cost, but does not explain accepted mode values, error behavior, or output shape.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and followed by a useful operational note. It is efficient, though borderline terse given the undocumented 'mode' parameter.

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 simple two-parameter formatting tool, the description still omits critical calling information: what values 'mode' accepts, whether invalid JSON produces an error, and what the return value looks like in the absence of an output schema.

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% for both parameters. The description implies a mode distinction between pretty-print and minify but never states accepted values for the 'mode' field or clarifies the expected JSON input format, leaving the semantics underspecified.

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?

States a specific verb(s) and resource: 'Pretty-print or minify JSON'. This clearly distinguishes the tool from JSON validation, diffing, or path extraction, though it does not explicitly name those siblings.

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?

'Pretty-print or minify' implies when to use the tool for formatting, but there is no explicit guidance on when to choose this over siblings like bursia_json_validate or bursia_json_diff. The 'free' note is contextual, not usage guidance.

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