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

Annotations already establish readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, and the description adds genuinely new behavioral context: the precise scope of the 9 checks, the explicit exclusions, and the important caveat that the result is pronunciation-based rather than an official national braille code. That caveat materially affects how an agent should interpret the output.

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 core purpose is front-loaded in the first clause, and the exclusion/caveat follows compactly. The Korean translation line adds length without new information for most callers, a minor redundancy, and the parenthetical ellipsis leaves the check list open-ended.

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 no output schema, the description partially compensates by listing what is analyzed and what is out of scope, which is enough for an agent to decide whether to call it. It stops short of describing the result shape (per-check pass/fail structure), which is the remaining gap for a verification tool.

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 description coverage is 100%, with the schema itself stating 'BRF text (ASCII braille)' and length bounds. The description adds no format guidance (e.g., encoding, line-ending expectations) beyond what the schema already says, so 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 ('Runs 9 automatic checks on BRF text') and enumerates the check categories (mapping, line length, page length, CRLF, form feed, round trip). This clearly distinguishes it from the conversion siblings (braille_convert, braille_to_brf), which transform rather than validate.

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?

Usage is implied — validate BRF output produced elsewhere — and the description draws a boundary by saying what is NOT checked (paper quality, dot depth). But it never names an alternative tool or states an explicit when-to-use condition, so the agent must infer that this is a post-conversion validation step.

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