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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the core transformation and that the tool returns cleaned text plus flags, but it does not explain what the flags mean, whether the input is mutated, or any side effects. This is adequate for a simple text-processing tool but leaves important behavioral details unspecified.

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 description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every clause adds information: the action, the target, the method, and the return value.

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?

Without an output schema or annotations, the description must explain enough for an agent to invoke the tool and interpret results. It mentions 'flags' but does not define them, and it references 'SOP anti-slop rules' without elaboration. For a tool with only two simple parameters, this is workable but not complete.

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 both parameters ('Draft text to clean' and 'Optional voice / tone notes for the edit'). The description adds no additional parameter-level meaning, so the baseline score 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?

The description specifies a clear action ('Tighten'), a resource ('Polish copy'), and a concrete operation ('strip AI/corp fillers using SOP anti-slop rules'). It also states the return value, making the tool's purpose easy to grasp. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like draft_linkedin_pl, and 'Polish' could be misread as the verb 'polish' without context.

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?

The description implies when to use the tool: when copy contains AI or corporate fillers that need tightening. It does not provide explicit when-not-to-use guidance or name alternatives, so an agent must infer the appropriate context from the phrase 'SOP anti-slop rules'.

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