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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It never says what transformations 'clean' performs (whitespace collapse? Unicode normalization? control-char removal?), whether it is idempotent, or what happens to the result. 'Strip noise and normalize' gestures at behavior without committing to any.

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 opening 'Text Clean: Clean text' restates the name and title without adding information, and the remaining clause is too vague to be actionable. It is short, but brevity here comes from under-specification rather than 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 text-mutating tool with no annotations, no output schema, 0% parameter documentation, and a crowded sibling space, the description is far too thin. An agent cannot confidently decide to call it or know what it will do to the input.

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 0% and the description says nothing about parameters. Worse, the tool exposes two string parameters ('text' and 'input') whose relationship is entirely unexplained, so the agent cannot tell which to populate or whether both are needed.

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?

It names a verb ('Clean') and a resource ('text'), so the agent knows it is a text-transformation tool. But 'strip noise and normalize' is hand-wavy, and the sibling list contains many near-identical cleaners (x402-normalize-whitespace, x402-collapse-spaces, x402-remove-non-ascii, x402-strip-html, x402-normalize), with nothing here that distinguishes this one from them.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this tool, when not to, or which sibling to prefer. Given the dozens of adjacent cleaning/normalizing tools, the absence of routing guidance is a real gap.

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