text_remove_duplicate_characters

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, destructiveHint, and idempotentHint. The description adds further transparency: 'Runs locally... read-only, non-destructive, contacts no external service, rate-limited (60 requests/minute for anonymous callers),' and details the return structure. No contradiction with annotations.

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 well-structured and informative, but somewhat verbose for a simple deduplication tool. It could be more concise without losing clarity, but it earns a 4 for effective communication.

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?

Given the output schema, the description need not detail return values but still does. It covers purpose, usage, behavior, parameters, and return, making it complete for the tool's complexity. No gaps.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds minimal extra meaning beyond the schema; it mentions 'keeping either the first or the last occurrence' which relates to firstOccurrence, but the schema already has descriptions. Little added value.

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 tool's function: 'Remove Duplicate Characters From Text' and explains it removes repeated characters keeping first or last occurrence. It explicitly distinguishes from sibling tools text_duplicate_word_remover and text_duplicate_line_remover, ensuring no confusion.

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 provides explicit guidance on when to use this tool ('dedupe at the character level') and when to use alternatives ('text_duplicate_word_remover for whole words, text_duplicate_line_remover for whole lines'). It also notes that it runs locally, is read-only, non-destructive, and rate-limited, giving comprehensive usage context.

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