unique_words

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It does reveal the cost and payment mechanism ($0.001 USDC via x402), which is a behavioral trait. However, it does not mention what input is accepted, what output is produced, or any other side effects, leaving the agent largely in the dark.

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 brief, but the first phrase 'unique words' is redundant with the tool name and does not earn its place. The cost sentence adds a bit of value, but the overall structure is an under-specified label rather than a well-formed tool description. It is short but not appropriately informative.

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 annotations, no output schema, and a generic input schema, the description is the only source of context. It fails to convey the tool's purpose, input format, or return value. Even for a simple utility, the agent cannot determine how to use it correctly. This is a clear gap.

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 contains only a generic 'params' object with no actual properties or descriptions. The description adds no information about what parameters should be passed (e.g., text, language, case sensitivity). With 0% effective parameter documentation from both schema and description, the agent has no way to correctly invoke the tool.

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 is essentially a restatement of the tool name ('unique words') plus a vague category label ('Other Utilities tool'). It provides no verb or resource to indicate what the tool actually does, such as extracting unique words from input text. This is closer to tautology than a clear purpose statement.

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. With many text analysis siblings (word_count, word_frequency, etc.), the description says nothing about when unique_words is the right choice. No context or exclusions are provided.

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