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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden and does well: it discloses that no message is sent, that no account is needed, and that the operation is free. It does not cover edge cases such as rate limits or error behavior, but the core safety profile is clear.

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 description is a single front-loaded sentence that covers purpose, return contents, and access conditions without wasted text. It is appropriately sized for a simple one-parameter checker.

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 simple tool with no output schema, the description explains the returned contents (verdict, score, findings, parsed message) and clarifies that no sending or authentication is involved. It is nearly complete, though it could mention error handling or storage behavior.

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 only one parameter and the schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents the message input. The description adds no parameter-specific detail beyond what the schema provides.

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 states a specific action: running the CLEAR checker on a message without sending it. It clearly describes the scope and outputs, but does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings such as gate or observe.

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 phrase "without sending it" establishes the main use case: previewing or validating a message before sending. It also notes that the tool is free and requires no account, though it does not name alternatives or exclusions.

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