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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it discloses the core behavior precisely: only the common leading whitespace is removed from each line. This distinguishes it from general trimming. It doesn't cover edge cases like blank lines or mixed tabs/spaces, but for a pure text transform this is adequate.

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?

Two sentences with the algorithm front-loaded. The use-case sentence earns its place, though 'Provide text or input' is somewhat redundant with the schema and could be removed without loss.

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 single-parameter text utility with no output schema, the description is sufficiently complete: it defines the input type, the operation, and a typical scenario. Missing return-value details and edge-case behavior are minor for this tool's simplicity.

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?

The schema only says 'Input to process', so the description adds meaningful context by indicating the input should be multi-line text, typically an indented code block. This helps the agent understand what value to pass beyond the generic parameter name.

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 operation: remove common leading whitespace from every line of multi-line text, and identifies the resource being transformed. The code-block use case reinforces the purpose. It doesn't explicitly contrast with the sibling x402-dedent-lines, so it stops short of full sibling differentiation.

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?

Gives a clear context ('useful for cleaning indented code blocks') and specifies that the input is multi-line text. It implies when this tool is appropriate but doesn't provide explicit when-not-to-use guidance or alternatives.

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