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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond that: it is free/not billed, returns issues with character offsets and ranked suggestions, and uses a specific engine for Kurdish. No contradiction or hidden side effects are evident.

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 sentences with no filler. Each sentence earns its place: the operation, the engine/language coverage, and the cost-plus-return shape. It is compact and front-loaded.

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 4 parameters with 100% schema coverage, rich annotations, and an output schema, the description sufficiently covers purpose, language support, cost, and return format. It does not explicitly route between sibling tools, but that is not strictly required for correct invocation.

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 four parameters, their enums, defaults, and constraints. The description adds language coverage context (e.g., Kurdish languages and ~90 others) but does not meaningfully deepen the semantics of text, script, profile, or language beyond the schema.

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 names a specific verb and resource: 'Check spelling, standardization, punctuation, capitalization and context errors.' This is clear, but it does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling mazdek_check_grammar, and 'context errors' may blur with grammar checking.

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 use for spell-check and related text issues, but it does not state when to prefer this over siblings like mazdek_check_grammar, mazdek_complete_diacritics, or mazdek_transliterate_sorani. No explicit exclusions or alternative routing is provided.

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