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 does say it 'returns indented text', but nothing about how existing leading whitespace is treated (added to vs replaced), what negative or non-numeric values do, or the default indentation when spaces/n are omitted.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the operation and followed by the input/output contract. No filler, though the parenthetical '(or n)' is a slightly awkward way to convey the parameter alias.

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 transform with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the core contract but leaves the 4-parameter alias ambiguity (text vs input, spaces vs n) and the default width unresolved. Adequate but with clear gaps an agent would have to guess at.

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% but the schema descriptions are placeholders ('N to process', 'Input to process'), and the description partially compensates by clarifying that spaces and n are alternative ways to specify the indentation width and that they are optional. It never explains what 'input' means relative to 'text', and gives no default for the width, leaving the alias set half-resolved.

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 concrete verb and resource: 'Indent each line of text by a number of spaces', which is unambiguous about the transformation. It does not distinguish itself from close siblings such as x402-indent-lines or x402-text-indent, so an agent cannot tell from the description alone which of the near-duplicates to pick.

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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of the near-identical sibling indentation tools. Usage must be inferred from the name and the one-line behavior statement.

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