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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, indicating a safe, read-only transformation. The description adds that the tool checks and rewrites the text, which is consistent. It does not disclose details like whether the original meaning is preserved or how output is returned, but annotations cover the safety profile.

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?

One sentence with zero waste. The core action is front-loaded, and every word adds value. It conveys what the tool does in a highly efficient manner.

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 tool with one string parameter and annotations covering safety, the description is adequate. It does not describe the output format or what the eight practices are, but those may be covered by sibling tools (e.g., check_follow_up_text). With no output schema, an agent might still wonder what exactly is returned, so completeness is moderate.

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% with a single parameter named 'text'. The description clarifies that the text is a 'follow-up text' and that it will be checked against practices, adding meaning beyond the raw schema. However, it omits any constraints or format expectations, which would be more helpful given zero schema descriptions.

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 specifies a concrete action (rewrites a follow-up text) and a distinguishing detail (against eight practices). It differentiates from siblings like check_follow_up_text (which only checks) and write_follow_up_texts (which writes from scratch) implicitly through the verb 'rewrites', but it does not explicitly name alternatives.

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: the tool is for rewriting an existing follow-up text so it passes eight practices, which suggests using it when you already have a draft. However, there is no explicit statement about when to use this versus check_follow_up_text or write_follow_up_texts, nor any mention of prerequisites or exclusions.

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