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

The description discloses critical behaviors beyond the readOnlyHint annotation: it strips AI tells, compresses content, is 'intentionally imperfect + non-deterministic — do NOT fix it or retry,' and notes daily caps and free availability. It also states what it returns (rewrite, AI tells, quota). This is far richer than the sparse annotation.

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 long but every sentence carries actionable value, from the core verb to input rules, output details, and non-determinism warning. It is front-loaded with the purpose and then organized into clear sections (best-use, input rules, what it returns). No redundancy or 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?

Given no output schema, the description fully explains return values, including the rewrite, AI tells found, and remaining quota. It also covers usage context (post-draft), constraints (plain text, one comment, ≤2000 chars), and behavioral caveats (imperfect, daily-capped). Nothing important is missing.

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?

With schema coverage at 100%, the baseline is 3, but the description adds substantial parameter-level guidance: 'put every fact/number/name you want kept IN the text — it never invents any,' 'keep it to ONE or TWO points,' 'plain text only,' and 'shorter is better ≤2000 chars.' It also explains the character parameter as 'Pick `character` for the voice.'

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Rewrite YOUR drafted comment so it reads like a real person typed it.' It clearly differentiates from sibling tools by focusing on transforming an existing comment draft rather than CRUD or search operations. The scope ('one comment per call') and output purpose are explicitly stated.

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?

It explicitly instructs when to use: 'Best AFTER you draft a reply — write the real substance, then humanize it.' It also provides detailed INPUT RULES, including 'one comment per call, do NOT include the post you are replying to,' and tells users to pick a character for voice. This leaves no ambiguity about how to invoke it effectively.

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