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

Annotations only say this is non-read-only and non-destructive; the description adds far more: the return shape (ok plus naruszenia with fragment, rule, hint), the explicit non-behavior ('does not rewrite your text'), and the side effect that explains readOnlyHint=false (two failures in a row go to the LEDGER). That is exactly the context annotations cannot convey.

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?

Four compact sentences, front-loaded with the action and the trigger, then the checks, then the return shape, then the retry rule and the ledger consequence. Nothing is redundant and no sentence could be dropped without losing information.

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?

There is no output schema, and the description compensates by naming the returned fields and their contents. Combined with the retry instruction and the ledger side effect, an agent has everything needed to call it and act on the result.

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?

Only one parameter and schema coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents 'text' including its 20000-character bound. The description reinforces intent ('exactly as you would send it') but adds no format or syntax detail beyond the schema, so the 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Run your result through MASTER') and enumerates exactly what is checked: forbidden words, names outside the rider, foreign language, placeholders, foreign brand, unnumbered promises. No sibling tool does anything comparable, so an agent can select it unambiguously.

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?

Timing is explicit ('before it goes to the owner') and the failure loop is prescribed ('fix it yourself and check again'). It also warns that two consecutive failures are recorded in the LEDGER. What is missing is any statement of when not to use it, but with no competing sibling the guidance is effectively complete.

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