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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description adds valuable behavioral details: it consumes monthly plan quota per character, enforces a 5,000-character limit, and returns word-level suggestions. No contradiction with annotations exists.

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?

Three concise sentences front-load the core purpose and then add quota and limit information. It is tightly written, though the character limit is slightly redundant with the schema's maxLength.

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 read-only grammar-checking tool, the description covers purpose, output nature, quota impact, and length limits. Since an output schema exists, the absence of detailed return-field explanation is acceptable. It does not mention error cases or unsupported language behavior, but these are not critical.

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 fully documents both parameters. The description's mention of 'Max 5,000 characters per call' repeats the schema's maxLength constraint, and the Kurdish-language emphasis adds context but not new parameter semantics.

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 and resource: 'AI-powered grammar checking' and clarifies the return type as 'word-level issues with suggestions.' It is clearly distinct from the sibling spellcheck tool by targeting grammar rather than spelling, though it does not explicitly name the sibling.

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 gives useful context by noting it is 'strongest for Kurdish' and that Kurmancî has a dedicated prompt, which implies preferred use cases. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over mazdek_spellcheck, mazdek_translate, or other alternatives.

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