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

Discloses concrete behavioral traits beyond the annotations: no side effects, read-only, no network access, no stored state, deterministic output for the same input, and execution limits. Although annotations already cover read-only and idempotent hints, the description adds valuable operational context such as rate/size limits and determinism.

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 purpose is front-loaded and the labeled sections (Cuándo, No para, Efectos secundarios, Determinista, Límites) make it scannable. However, the full Spanish and English versions duplicate the same content, roughly doubling length without adding new information.

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 text-transformation tool with complete schema coverage, rich annotations, and an output schema, the description covers purpose, usage boundaries, side effects, determinism, and limits. Nothing essential for correct invocation is missing.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all four parameters. The description mentions optional case-insensitive and whitespace-trimmed comparison but does not explain drop_empty and adds little beyond the structured parameter descriptions. The baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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?

Specifies the exact operation (remove duplicate lines), the retention rule (first occurrence), order preservation, and optional comparison modes. It clearly contrasts with dedupe-similar for near-duplicate grouping. An agent can distinguish this from sibling deduplication and line-processing tools without opening the schema.

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?

Explicitly states when to use it (exact text transformation, comparison, or measurement rather than approximation) and when not to use it (grouping near-duplicate strings), naming the alternative dedupe-similar. This is the clearest possible routing guidance.

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