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

Annotations already mark the tool read-only and closed-world; the description adds the 100,000-character ceiling, server-fixed model/parameters, latency optimization, and per-request point cost. It doesn't describe the return format, but for a simple transformation this is adequate context.

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 function is front-loaded and the length is manageable, but the English and Korean sentences largely duplicate the same message, and the bracketed point cost is redundant with the preceding sentence. Several sentences repeat information without adding new guidance.

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 single-parameter transformation tool with a fully documented schema and read-only annotations, the description covers the input limit, operation, and cost model. The absence of an output schema is offset by the obvious return of polished text, though an explicit return description would make it fully complete.

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?

The input schema covers 100% of parameter meaning with its own description of the text field, so the baseline is 3. The description repeats the character limit but adds no unique parameter-level semantics 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 action (polish), a specific resource (input text), and the concrete transformations (grammar, spelling, awkward phrasing, sentence order) while preserving meaning. This clearly differentiates it from the sibling text_summary, which would condense rather than polish.

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 context in which to use the tool is implied: when a text needs grammar/spelling/phrasing corrections. However, it never explicitly contrasts with alternatives or states when not to use it (e.g., text_summary for summarization), so the routing burden is left to the agent.

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