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

With annotations only covering generic safety flags (readOnly/destructive/idempotent all false), the description adds real context: the output is intentionally less polished, must be presented verbatim without edits, and consumes the account balance at 1 word per input word. It omits failure modes, limits, and rate-limit behavior, so not a full 5.

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, front-loaded with the core purpose before the output-handling and billing details. Dense but every clause (verbatim display, intentional phrasing, billing unit) carries operational weight; only the long detector list is marginally verbose.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description correctly specifies the return value ('only the rewritten text') and how to present it. Combined with full schema coverage of all six parameters, an agent has everything needed to invoke and consume the tool correctly.

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 every parameter including tone, model, markdown, spelling, and ultra_stealth is already documented in the schema. The description adds only a tangential link between word count and billing, which does not deepen parameter meaning 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?

States a specific verb (rewrite) and resource (AI-generated text) with the outcome goal (reads naturally, passes AI detectors like GPTZero and Turnitin). It is unmistakably distinct from the unrelated sibling get_account_status.

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?

Gives clear post-call handling rules - show output verbatim, do not comment on quality or edit it - and notes the cost model, so the agent knows how to consume the result. It stops short of explicit when-not-to-use conditions, though no competing sibling exists to route against.

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