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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the useful behavioral context that the operation is free and that the list is scoped to spellcheck/grammar languages only. This is meaningful added value beyond the structured annotations, though it doesn't discuss pagination or return format (which the output schema likely handles).

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?

A single sentence that front-loads the core purpose and then adds useful specifics. There is zero wasted wording; every clause contributes to understanding what the tool does and who it serves.

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 parameterless listing tool with an output schema, this description is complete. It tells the agent what the list contains, names the associated tools, and notes the free-of-charge behavior. Nothing an agent needs to decide whether to call it is missing.

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?

With zero parameters, the baseline is 4. The description still enriches the meaning by specifying exactly what will be returned (the Kurdish engines plus other supported languages), giving agents a preview of the response content. Since there are no parameters to document, this 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 ('List') and resource ('languages available to mazdek_spellcheck and mazdek_check_grammar'), names concrete examples (kmr, ckb, zza), and differentiates from sibling tools by explicitly naming the two tools it serves. An agent can tell it apart from mazdek_list_translate_languages without opening either schema.

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 implies when to use this tool: to discover the language options for mazdek_spellcheck and mazdek_check_grammar. It even names the specific tools whose language sets it lists. However, it does not explicitly mention alternative list tools (like mazdek_list_translate_languages) or provide exclusions, so it falls just short of the best possible guidance.

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