Record normalization

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false, openWorldHint=true. The description adds valuable behavioral context: it produces a change log of every fix, and it costs credits from the account wallet. It also implies transformation (messy → clean) which aligns with readOnlyHint=false. No contradiction. The credit cost is a behavioral trait not in annotations, adding transparency.

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 sentence that front-loads the core transformation and includes the change log and credit cost. It's concise and every phrase earns its place. Slightly more could be said about when to use it, but as a concise description it's effective.

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?

For a transformation tool with no output schema, the description covers the main behavior and cost, but doesn't mention return format details (e.g., what the change log looks like) or edge cases. The annotations cover safety profile. It's adequate but has gaps: no output schema means the agent doesn't know the response structure, and the description doesn't compensate fully.

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%, so the schema already documents all three parameters. The description adds the concept of 'canonical rows' and 'change log' but doesn't add parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 verb ('normalize') and resource ('messy records → clean canonical rows'), and mentions a change log. It distinguishes itself from siblings like parserail_redact or parserail_extract by focusing on normalization with a change log. However, it doesn't explicitly name a sibling alternative, so it's clear but not fully differentiated.

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 implies usage: use when you have messy records and want clean canonical rows. It doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives. The 'Costs credits from the account wallet' is a usage consideration but not a when-to-use guideline. Overall, usage context is implied but not explicit.

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