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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds two useful pieces of context not in the annotations: the 2,000-character input cap and the fact that invocation is free with no downstream cost. It does not describe the shape of the result (single number vs. both metrics).

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 sentence, front-loaded with the operation and followed by the operational limits. Nothing wasted, nothing buried.

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-param pure function this is close to adequate, but with no output schema the description should indicate what comes back — distance only, similarity only, or both, and on what scale. The ambiguity between 'edit distance and similarity' is left unresolved.

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 coverage is 100% and the parameters are trivially named a/b, so the baseline is 3. The description adds a real constraint beyond the schema — max 2,000 chars per text — which meaningfully affects how an agent prepares inputs.

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 computation over a specific resource: edit distance and similarity between two texts. This is clearly distinct from siblings like bursia_json_diff or bursia_text_stats, though the description doesn't explicitly name those alternatives to sharpen the boundary.

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?

No guidance on when to choose this over bursia_json_diff or bursia_text_stats, nor any stated preconditions. 'Pure computation, free' signals cost/effort but says nothing about selection criteria.

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