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

Goes well beyond the annotations: it discloses that the call is asynchronous ('starts a check in the background', returns scan_id with status pending, result not in this reply), that it costs one word of balance per word checked and re-charges on repeat calls, the 50-word minimum, and that failed preconditions (too short, too long, low balance) are not charged. It also frames the score as a likelihood, not proof — a caveat the annotations cannot express.

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?

Purpose and the when-to-use case are front-loaded, and every sentence carries information (async behavior, chaining, billing, limits, caveat). It is on the dense side — the billing and length-limit details sit in one long run — but there is no outright filler.

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 an async, billable, network-dependent tool the description covers initiation, the required follow-up call, cost semantics, input constraints, and failure behavior; return-value detail is unnecessary because an output schema exists.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds a hard validation rule not present in the schema ('The text needs at least 50 words') plus a plan-dependent length limit, which materially affects how the agent should prepare the text argument. It does not add anything for the optional title parameter.

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 ('AI detector' that scores how likely text was AI-written) and names the input types it handles (essay, paper, article). It also explicitly separates itself from check_plagiarism, so the agent can tell it apart from siblings without opening schemas.

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?

Gives an explicit when-to-use condition ('user wants to know how likely it is that a text was written by AI'), an explicit alternative ('For copied or matching text, use check_plagiarism instead'), and the required follow-up call to get_scan_result. Routing is fully determined.

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