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

Annotations already mark readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive. The description adds determinism ('same text always returns the same findings') and the output shape ('each finding with evidence quoted... and the fix'), which enriches the behavioral picture beyond the structured hints, though scoring thresholds are left unexplained.

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, each with a distinct purpose: define scope, state determinism, and provide usage timing plus result summary. No filler or redundancy; the core purpose 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?

For a single-parameter, read-only tool with an output schema, the description covers purpose, usage timing, determinism, and result structure. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly 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?

Schema coverage is 100% and the only parameter 'text' already has a strong description in the schema ('Paste the prose itself, not a summary of it'). The tool description restates the draft concept but doesn't add new parameter-level meaning, so baseline 3 applies.

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?

Explicitly names the action (Scan) and the resource (a draft), then enumerates the specific pattern categories detected: banned vocabulary, structural tells, and pattern density. The title aligns with the description, and with no sibling tools there's no differentiation burden.

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 an explicit 'Run this before...' directive with concrete examples (email, post, cover letter, marketing copy, blog article). While no alternatives exist, the usage context is unambiguous and actionable.

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