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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely non-structured behavior: liturgical marks (titlos, accents, breathings) are dropped, late spellings are folded, and the transform is purely local with no dictionary lookup or network call, plus the response shape. It does not discuss limits such as the 4000-character cap or failure behavior on mixed-script input.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the verb and an illustrative example, then the transformation behavior, then the return format. Little waste, though the closing sentence about Markdown and structuredContent partially restates what the declared outputSchema already conveys.

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 a single-parameter, deterministic local transform with an output schema and full annotation coverage, the description supplies everything needed to call it correctly: input scope, scripts accepted, preprocessing behavior, and side-effect freedom. The only gap is routing guidance among the sibling tools, which leaves a small ambiguity for an agent choosing between transliterate and detransliterate.

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 single 'text' parameter is already well documented, so the baseline is 3. The description goes slightly beyond the schema by showing an actual input-to-output mapping and confirming that both Cyrillic and Glagolitic scripts are accepted within the same argument.

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 (transliterate), a specific resource (Church Slavonic, Cyrillic or Glagolitic), and the target convention (scientific Latin as used by Wiktionary), with a concrete worked example (богъ → bogŭ). The directionality is explicit, which cleanly separates it from the slavonic_detransliterate sibling even without naming it.

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 gives an implicit use case — liturgical text copied from a source or lyrics sheet works as-is — but never states when to prefer this tool over slavonic_detransliterate or the search/inflection siblings, and offers no exclusions or prerequisites. Usage is inferable from the transformation direction rather than spelled out.

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