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

Annotations provide no substantive behavioral hints, so the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses a key side effect ('Spends words from the account balance (1 input word = 1 word)') and the output behavior ('Returns only the rewritten text'). It does not mention rate limits or error behavior, but the most important operational trait is clearly stated.

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: purpose first, output behavior second, cost implication third. 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?

The description plus the rich input schema is sufficient for an agent to call the tool correctly. It states the return contract, the word-cost side effect, and the intended use, while all parameter defaults and enums are covered by the schema. A pointer to get_account_status for balance checks would be a small improvement, but it is not essential.

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 is already documented in the input schema. The description adds the account-balance cost model and confirms the return format, but it does not meaningfully extend the meaning of individual parameters beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 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 uses a specific verb ('Rewrite') and resource ('AI-generated text') and states the intended outcome: natural human writing that scores as human on AI detectors. It also clarifies the output contract ('Returns only the rewritten text'), which distinguishes it clearly from the only sibling tool, 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?

The description makes the use case explicit: humanize AI-generated text for natural style and detector evasion. It does not list when-not-to-use scenarios, but there is no competing text tool among the siblings, so no exclusion is necessary. The word-cost note also implies a precondition (sufficient account balance).

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