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

Goes well beyond the annotations (which only cover the read-only, idempotent, closed-world safety profile). It discloses two concrete limits (5,000 chars per call, 5 free checks per caller per day plus a shared daily cap), states that text is sent to the DraftCheck service and not stored by Haven, and warns the score is a heuristic rather than proof of authorship.

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 purpose, then return shape, then usage, then limits, then disclaimer. Every sentence adds an actionable fact (limits, privacy, caveat) and none is redundant padding.

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 compensates by describing the return payload (score plus each tell with location and fix hint). Combined with rate limits, data-handling and the heuristic disclaimer, an agent has everything needed to call this correctly.

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% for the single 'text' parameter, so the schema already carries the semantics and the baseline is 3. The description's only additions are the same 5,000-char cap already in the schema and the English-language restriction, which the schema does not state.

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 (scores English text 0-100 for AI-writing tells) and even enumerates the tell categories it detects. It does not, however, differentiate itself from the closely related sibling slopscore_check, so an agent still has to infer which of the two scoring tools to pick.

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?

Explicitly supplies use contexts: review a draft before publishing, or compare two versions. It gives clear positive guidance but names no exclusions or alternative tools (e.g. slopscore_check), so the agent lacks a routing rule when both could apply.

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