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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value beyond that by disclosing the return payload (corrected text plus a list of problems) and the exact normative basis and error taxonomy used for corrections, which no structured field conveys.

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 tight sentences: what it does and under which norm, what it returns, and when to invoke it. The most decision-relevant information (correcting Aranese to the IEA norm) is front-loaded and nothing is redundant.

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, non-destructive text tool with no output schema, the definition supplies everything an agent needs: the input constraint is in the schema, the return value is described in prose, and the mandatory pre-delivery usage rule is stated. Nothing material 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?

There is a single parameter and schema coverage is 100%, with the schema itself stating the Aranese-language constraint and the 5,000-character limit. The description adds nothing about the parameter's format or edge cases (e.g. what happens near the character limit or with mixed-language input), so the schema does all the work — baseline 3.

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 pair (check and correct) applied to a named resource (Aranese text) and enumerates the error classes it targets — spelling, grammar, Catalan/Spanish interferences, general-Occitan forms — against a named standard (IEA norm). This is clearly distinct from the sibling tools that look up, guide, or translate rather than correct.

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 final sentence gives an explicit and unusually strong usage rule: apply it to every Aranese text before delivering output. It stops short of naming when not to use it or pointing to the siblings (e.g. diccionari_aranes for lookups), so the routing guidance is one-directional.

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