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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds one genuine behavioral trait beyond them – that voice and style are preserved in the output – but says nothing about what is returned, whether the operation consumes credits, or any length constraints.

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?

Two short lines with no filler and the key constraint front-loaded. The leading 'Proofread' heading merely restates the tool name and title, which is minor redundancy rather than bloat.

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?

With no output schema, the description should clarify what comes back (the corrected text, a diff, a list of edits) and whether the original content is returned or replaced. It also omits any input size limits. For a text-transformation tool this leaves real gaps, though the core behavior is conveyed.

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 0% for the single 'content' parameter, so the description would need to compensate but does not mention it at all. The parameter's meaning (the text to proofread) is trivially inferable from the tool name and required-string schema, so this is adequate rather than poor.

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 concrete operation (grammar and spelling fixes) and states a scoping constraint (preserving voice and style), which implicitly separates it from siblings like adjustTone or makeConcise. It is clear what the tool does, though it never names an alternative tool explicitly.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no mention of the many adjacent text tools (adjustTone, makeConcise, customEdit, convertToStory). The agent must infer that this is the correct tool for pure grammar/spelling correction from the purpose sentence alone.

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