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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond the annotations: it is free/not billed, it handles ambiguity contextually ('where context requires'), and it covers two distinct language variants. This goes beyond what the structured fields alone convey.

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 two sentences with no wasted words. The core action and linguistic scope are front-loaded, examples make behavior concrete, and the free/billing note is a compact, valuable addition. Every element earns its place.

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 two simple parameters, complete schema coverage, an existing output schema, and annotations covering safety/idempotency semantics, nothing an agent needs to invoke this tool correctly is missing. The description covers the core operation, language scope, ambiguity caveat, and cost implications.

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 fully documents the text and language parameters. The description adds some semantic flavor by matching Kurmancî and Kirmanckî to the language enum and showing example input/output, but it does not need to compensate for any schema gap. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 ('Restore') and specific resource ('missing diacritics in Kurmancî or Kirmanckî text'), which clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like translation, transcription, spellcheck, and grammar checking. Concrete examples ('kurdistan' → 'Kurdistanê') further disambiguate the tool's function so an agent can confidently select it.

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 clearly establishes when to use the tool: for Kurmancî or Kirmanckî text written without diacritics. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the focused phrasing plus sibling tool names makes the intended context clear. It lacks explicit 'do not use for X' guidance, so it stops just short of a 5.

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