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 return type, but leaves out useful details such as the default indentation when neither spaces nor n is provided, how blank lines behave, and what happens if both spaces and n are supplied.

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 efficient sentence with the main operation front-loaded. Minor redundancy comes from the leading 'Indent:' label, but no words are wasted.

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 text transformation, the description is minimally adequate: it names the input, the indentation amount, and the output. However, it lacks an example, a default indentation value, and a clear statement of how the three optional parameters relate, so an agent might still call it incorrectly.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3, and the schema descriptions themselves are generic ('Input to process', 'Spaces to process') and provide almost no real meaning. The description adds that spaces or n control indentation, which is helpful, but it does not clarify parameter types, defaults, or precedence between n and spaces.

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 gives a clear verb and resource: 'Indent each line of text by a number of spaces.' It states what the tool does and even mentions the return value. It does not differentiate itself from closely related siblings like x402-indent-lines or x402-text-indent, so it loses the top point.

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 explains how to invoke it ('Provide text and optional spaces') but gives no guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives. Given siblings with very similar purposes, an agent has no basis for preferring this one over x402-indent-lines or x402-text-indent.

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