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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is known. The description adds mode-based behavioral details (joining with single spaces vs. preserving blank lines between paragraphs), which is valuable for predicting output and doesn't contradict any annotation.

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?

Three sentences with the main action front-loaded. The source URL at the end adds provenance but is not needed for invocation, so it slightly reduces efficiency.

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 transformation tool with full schema descriptions, read-only/idempotent annotations, and an output schema, the description is complete. It explains both modes unambiguously and provides all information an agent needs to call it correctly.

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% and both parameters are already documented in the schema. The description's explanation of modes largely duplicates the schema description for 'mode', adding no additional parameter meaning beyond what's already structured.

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 clearly states the verb 'Remove' and the resource 'text', and explains the two modes ('spaces' and 'paragraphs'). This distinguishes it from similar tools like hopi_remove_duplicate_lines and hopi_remove_extra_spaces.

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 gives clear context for when to use each mode ('spaces' joins everything, 'paragraphs' preserves paragraph breaks). It doesn't explicitly name alternatives such as hopi_remove_duplicate_lines, but within the tool the mode guidance is unambiguous.

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