text_text_column

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, destructiveHint, and idempotentHint. The description adds critical behavioral context: 'Read-only, non-destructive pure computation that runs in-process with no network or storage; rate limited to 60 req/min (anonymous) / 120 req/min (authenticated). Returns the processed text plus before/after line/character/word stats and the resolved options.' No contradictions.

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 thorough yet efficient: a single, well-structured paragraph. It front-loads the purpose, then explains operations, usage conditions, and technical details. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy.

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 tool's complexity (7 parameters, multiple operations, existing output schema), the description covers all necessary aspects: operations, usage context, behavioral traits, rate limits, and return values. The output schema provides the return format, so the description does not need to repeat it.

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 briefly ties operations to parameters (e.g., columnNumber for extract) but does not add substantial meaning beyond the schema definitions. It's adequate but not exceptional.

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 starts with a clear verb+resource: 'Extract, Align, or Analyze Columns in Delimited Text.' It explicitly lists three operations and distinguishes the tool from siblings like text_splitter, text_joiner, and csv_json, leaving no ambiguity about what the tool does.

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 when-to-use guidance: 'Use this for columnar/tabular text (CSV, TSV, space-separated logs) when you need a single column or aligned table.' It also names alternatives for other use cases, making it clear when not to use this tool.

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