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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false (possible side effects), openWorldHint=true, and idempotentHint=false. The description adds crucial behavioral details: it is heuristic (not legal), requires a Word Orb key and plan entitlement, and counts toward account quotas. This goes beyond the annotations and clarifies the side effects (quota consumption) and auth requirements.

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 two sentences, with the purpose front-loaded and the disclaimers/requirements in the second sentence. Every sentence earns its place; there is no fluff or repetition.

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?

The tool has only 2 parameters and no output schema. The description covers purpose, limitations, auth, and quota. It does not describe the output format, but given the simplicity and lack of output schema, this is not a critical omission. The description is sufficiently complete for an agent to call it 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 description coverage is 100%, so both parameters (input and policy) are documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter-specific detail beyond what the schema already provides. The baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema carries the full burden.

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 clear verb (Check), a specific resource (supplied text), and the outcome (content flags and reading-level estimates). It clearly distinguishes itself from the sibling tools, which are all word-lookup or generation tools, by focusing on compliance checking.

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?

It provides clear context: it is a heuristic check, not legal certification, and requires a key and quota. This implicitly tells the agent when to use it (for heuristic content checks) and when not (for legal compliance). It does not explicitly name alternatives, but the sibling set is obviously different, so the exclusion is clear.

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