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

Annotations already establish that this is a read-only, non-destructive, open-world operation. The description adds useful behavioral context by stating that it returns the original query plus alternate suggestions and by disclosing a cost of 20 credits. It does not explain edge cases such as empty suggestion lists or confidence details, but it adds meaningful information beyond the annotations.

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 short and front-loaded, moving quickly from purpose to response and cost. The opening phrase repeats the tool name and title somewhat redundantly, but the rest is efficient.

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 one-parameter tool with annotations and an output schema, the description covers purpose, input expectations, response content, and cost. The main missing element is differentiation from related spelling or grammar tools, which is a usage-guidance gap rather than a core completeness issue.

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 has full description coverage for the single query parameter, including an example. The description only restates that any text string can be passed, without adding syntax, formatting, or length constraints beyond the schema. With 100% schema coverage, 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 states a specific verb and resource: it suggests spelling corrections for misspelled queries and phrases. It also describes the response shape (original query plus alternate suggestions). It does not distinguish itself from closely related siblings such as SpellChecker or GrammarCheck.

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?

Usage is implied by the mention of misspelled search queries and phrases, so an agent can infer when it is relevant. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over SpellChecker or other text-correction siblings, and no exclusions are given.

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