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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden; it does disclose the core behavior (input without marks, output with marks) and demonstrates it concretely via the Yorùbá example. It does not state what happens with an unsupported or misspelled language code, whether non-target characters are preserved, or whether the operation is idempotent.

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?

Front-loaded with the purpose, followed by the language list and a worked example — no filler sentences. The language list is slightly uneven, glossing yor/ibo/hau/ara but leaving the rest as bare ISO codes.

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 simple two-parameter text transformer with no output schema, the description covers purpose, valid language inputs, and the output shape via example. It leaves error behavior for invalid languages and any caveats about text preservation unstated, which is the main remaining 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 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does for `language` by enumerating the accepted codes (yor, ibo, hau, vie, pol, tur, por, spa, fra, ita, ara) that the schema does not constrain via enum. `text` is only conveyed implicitly through the example, and several bare codes (vie, pol, tur) lack glosses.

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+resource: "Put back diacritics, tone marks or Arabic vowel marks in text typed without them," which makes the transformation unambiguous. It does not name or differentiate itself from siblings like detect_language or extract_document, so an agent must infer the boundary itself.

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 condition for use is stated clearly ("text typed without them") and the enumerated language codes define the supported scope, which functions as a usage constraint. There are no explicit exclusions or pointers to alternative tools, so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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