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

The readOnlyHint annotation already signals a safe read operation, and the description adds useful behavioral context: it invokes an external academic service and explicitly states the return behavior ('Renvoie la meilleure vocalisation et les variantes par mot ambigu'). This goes beyond the annotation without contradicting it.

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 compact, front-loaded with the core action, and every sentence earns its place: function, genres/default, and expected output. No filler or redundancy.

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 parameters, full schema coverage, readOnlyHint set, and no output schema, the description adequately covers what an agent needs: what the tool does, how it behaves, what genres are supported, and what it returns. Nothing essential 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description restates the genre enum and the default value already present in the schema, but it does not add meaningful new parameter-level detail beyond what the schema provides.

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 states a specific action ('Vocalise'), the exact resource ('texte hébreu non ponctué'), and the underlying service ('le nakdan de Dicta'). It also names the available genres, making the tool's scope immediately clear and distinguishable from the unrelated sibling 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?

The description clearly implies when to use the tool: for unpointed Hebrew text needing vocalisation, with genre selection. It does not explicitly mention exclusions or alternatives, but the context is clear enough and no sibling tool competes with this function.

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