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

The description adds behavioral details beyond the annotations: 'Deterministic rule-based conversion — free (not billed), no network call.' This discloses that the operation is deterministic (consistent with idempotentHint), incurs no cost, and requires no network access. These traits are not present in the annotations, providing valuable context for an agent deciding whether to invoke the tool.

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 zero fluff. The primary function is stated first, followed by two key behavioral traits (deterministic, free/no network). Every sentence earns its place, and the most important information is 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?

For a simple two-parameter tool with an output schema and annotations covering safety (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), the description provides all essential context: what it does, the direction semantics, and behavioral traits like determinism and cost. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, but the schema descriptions are minimal ('The Soranî text.' and 'Which way to convert.'). The description enriches the meaning of both parameters: it specifies the scripts involved (Arabic and Latin/Hawar-based) and clarifies the direction options. This adds semantic value beyond the schema, though not exhaustive—e.g., it does not detail the exact Latin orthography or any edge cases.

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 ('Convert'), resource ('Soranî Kurdish text'), and the exact transformation ('between the Arabic script and the Latin (Hawar-based) script, in either direction'). It clearly distinguishes this from translation, transcription, and spellcheck tools, as it is explicitly a script conversion. The name and title are reinforced, not tautological.

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: whenever Soranî text needs script conversion between Arabic and Latin. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, but the sibling names (translate, transcribe, spellcheck) are distinct enough that an agent can infer the appropriate context. There is clear context but no explicit exclusions or alternative references.

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