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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false). The description adds value beyond them by clarifying the return ('code to paste') and that it is 'free' and performs no text checking, though it says nothing about latency or size limits.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with what is returned, then when to use it, then the read-only caveat. Slight awkwardness in 'a platform in a language: code to paste', but nothing is padding.

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?

With only two enum parameters, full annotations, and no output schema, the description supplies what an agent needs: what comes back, when to call it, and that it is side-effect free. Return format details beyond 'code to paste' are the only minor gap.

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% with both parameters enum-constrained and described, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description only alludes to 'platform' and 'language' generically and adds no syntax or combination guidance beyond what the enums already state.

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 ('complete, runnable recipe for adding Unprofane to a platform in a language') and says exactly what is produced ('code to paste'). The clause 'it checks no text' cleanly separates it from the sibling check_text/check_batch tools.

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?

'Use it when asked to add a profanity or username filter to an app' gives a concrete triggering scenario. It stops short of explicitly naming the alternative siblings for cases where the agent needs an actual check, but the implied contrast is clear.

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