analyze_text

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, covering the safety profile. The description adds behavioral context by specifying the computed outputs (word, character, sentence counts, reading time), which is beyond the annotations and helps the agent anticipate results. It does not introduce any undisclosed side effects or 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 a single, front-loaded sentence that immediately states the action and outputs. It contains no fluff or repetition, earning the maximum score for conciseness and structure.

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 simplicity (one parameter, high schema coverage), the existence of an output schema, and read-only/idempotent annotations, the description fully equips the agent to select and invoke the tool correctly. No additional context is needed.

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 description coverage is 100% for the single parameter 'text', which includes the meaning and a non-empty constraint. The description does not add further parameter details, but the schema fully captures the semantics, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb 'Compute' and lists exact resources (word, character, and sentence counts, plus estimated reading time), making the tool's purpose unmistakable. It clearly differentiates from sibling tools like fetch_url_metadata and convert_temperature, which cover unrelated domains.

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 conveys clear context: this tool is for computing text analytics metrics. It does not explicitly discuss when not to use it or compare with alternatives, but the sibling tools are unrelated and the purpose is self-evident, so the guidance is sufficient for a straightforward tool.

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