expand_text

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only mentions a cost of $0.001 USDC via x402 but reveals nothing about the tool's behavior, processing, side effects, or output. This is insufficient for an agent to understand the tool's effects.

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 extremely short, which could be considered concise, but it is under-specified rather than efficiently informative. The only useful detail is the cost, while the core functionality is missing.

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?

With no output schema, no annotations, and no parameter details, the description is grossly incomplete. An agent cannot reliably determine what input to provide or what to expect from the tool, making it unsafe to invoke without external knowledge.

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 schema contains a single opaque 'params' property with only the generic description 'Tool parameters as JSON object.' The tool description adds no information about what parameters are expected, leaving the agent with zero guidance on how to structure the call.

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 'expand text — Text & Encoding tool' is nearly tautological, restating the tool name and placing it in a broad category. It does not explain what 'expand' means (e.g., expand abbreviations, Unicode, or URLs) and does not distinguish it from similar siblings like ipv6_expand or normalize_text.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description gives no context, prerequisites, or typical use cases, leaving the agent to guess when 'expand_text' would be appropriate.

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