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

Annotations already declare readOnly/openWorld/idempotent/destructive, yet the description still adds real value: determinism, no network or stored state, and concrete limits (64 KB input, 1 s, 1 MB output). One friction point: the stated 64 KB JSON input cap sits in tension with the schema's maxLength of 262144, which could make an agent over-restrict input sizes. Minor, but it keeps this below a 5.

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?

Each version is front-loaded and tight—purpose, when, not-for, side effects, limits—with no filler sentences. The cost is that the identical content is presented twice (ES and EN), which roughly doubles length for an English-reading agent without adding 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 single-parameter pure function with an output schema, annotations and full schema coverage, the definition supplies everything else an agent needs: scope, alternative tool, side-effect profile, determinism and operating limits.

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?

One required parameter at 100% schema coverage, so the schema already documents it fully. The description adds only the semantic note that tabs and spaces are not mixed, which is a behavior of the transform rather than guidance on the 'text' argument itself; 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('removes the common leading whitespace from every non-blank line') and anchors it to a known reference implementation (Python textwrap.dedent). It also distinguishes itself from the nearest sibling, text-indent, so an agent can pick correctly without opening either 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 gives a when clause ('text has to be transformed, compared or measured exactly instead of approximated') and a when-not clause naming the alternative ('Not for: prefixing every line (text-indent)'). Nothing about selection is left to inference.

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