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

Annotations already declare read-only and idempotent behavior. The description adds useful context: it's a self-hosted LanguageTool, supports 30+ languages, and returns each issue with a suggested replacement. This goes beyond the annotations by describing the output format and the practical use of applying replacements.

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 compact—two sentences plus an example URL. The first sentence is a clear purpose statement, the second explains the output and usage, and the example adds practical context. It avoids fluff, though the URL adds a bit of length; overall it is well-structured and 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 relatively simple tool with a rich input schema (100% coverage) and an output schema, the description sufficiently covers what the tool does, its language support, and the nature of the returned issues. It explains the action of applying replacements, making the tool's purpose and usage complete enough for an agent to select and invoke it correctly.

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 the surface-level meaning of both parameters is fully documented in the schema. The description's example only illustrates the 'text' parameter and does not add any semantics beyond what the schema already provides. It neither compensates nor detracts, so the baseline of 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 clearly states the verb 'Check' and the resource 'text for grammar, spelling and style issues', with a scope of 30+ languages. It also mentions the output (issues with suggested replacements), which helps distinguish it from sibling translation tools.

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 provides clear context for use by explaining that issues come with replacements and suggesting to apply them for corrected text. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state exclusions, but the unique purpose (grammar/style vs translation) is evident, meeting the 'clear context, no exclusions' level.

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