normalize_unicode_nfc

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits on its own. It mentions the core transformations (normalize, strip invalid surrogates, fix mojibake) and also includes a cost note ('0.005 USDC on Base L2') indicating a payment requirement. However, it does not specify whether the operation is read-only or mutates the input, nor does it describe possible side effects (e.g., loss of unsupported characters) or the return format. Given the absence of annotations, this is a moderate disclosure but not exhaustive.

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, dense sentence that front-loads the primary action immediately, followed by a brief cost note in parentheses. There is no filler or redundant phrasing. Every clause adds value: the encoding types, the invalid surrogate stripping, and the mojibake fixing. The structure is efficient and immediately scannable.

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 moderate complexity (2 params, no output schema), the description covers the core functionality and the cost implication. It does not explicitly state what the tool returns (e.g., the normalized string or a result object), which could be inferred but is not explicit. The absence of an output schema makes this a minor gap, but overall the description is sufficient for an agent to understand the purpose and general behavior.

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?

The input schema already describes both parameters (payload and paymentSignature) with clear descriptions. Schema coverage is 100%, so the description adds no additional parameter semantics. The description does not clarify how these parameters interact with the normalization process (e.g., whether paymentSignature is required for execution). Per the baseline rule, a 3 is appropriate when the schema handles parameter documentation.

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 states a specific, action-oriented purpose: 'Normalizes mixed UTF-8/UTF-16 encoding, strips invalid surrogate pairs, and fixes corrupted mojibake characters.' This clearly identifies the resource (text encoding) and the specific operations performed, distinguishing it from any sibling tool. No sibling has a similar focus on encoding normalization.

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 implicitly conveys when to use the tool: when dealing with mixed UTF-8/UTF-16 data or corrupted mojibake. There is no explicit mention of when not to use it, but the niche purpose makes it clear that it is for encoding repair. It does not name alternatives, but none of the siblings are obviously similar, so the guidance is adequate.

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