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

The description reinforces the annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint) with a statement that every call is read-only and idempotent. It also uniquely discloses error behavior: the tool never raises a protocol error but returns an error object with fix instructions. This adds significant value 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 well-structured and front-loaded with the primary purpose. The example input/output is helpful but slightly lengthy; however, every sentence serves a purpose (usage guidance, error behavior, idempotency). A minor reduction in example detail could improve conciseness.

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?

Given a moderate tool with 2 parameters and an output schema, the description covers all necessary aspects: core functionality, usage boundaries, error handling, idempotency, and a typical example. No information gaps remain.

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% and the description adds substantial meaning beyond the schema. It provides a concrete JSON input/output example showing how target_grade influences the gap assessment and what output fields look like. It also explains error handling for invalid input.

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 tool analyzes teaching text with Flesch-Kincaid readability and leveling advice. It distinguishes from sibling tools grade_curve and analyze_writing by specifying what the tool is for and what it is not for.

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 explicitly states when to use the tool ('teaching text where the reading level matters') and when not to use it ('Not for scores students earned (grade_curve) and not for general prose style, which the creator server's analyze_writing covers'). This provides clear guidance on selecting this tool over alternatives.

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