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

Annotations already cover read-only/idempotent/non-destructive, and the description adds genuinely non-redundant context: it costs no add-on credits, returns a 0-100 score plus specific fixes, and is a quality signal rather than an evasion tool. No auth, rate-limit, or length-limit details are given, which keeps it at 4.

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 core action and return value are front-loaded, and the disclaimers about free usage and non-evasion each serve a real purpose. Slightly long and repetitive in the pattern list, but no sentence is wasted.

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 description covers what the tool does, when to run it, and what it returns, and an output schema exists so return structure need not be restated. The unmentioned 'language' parameter is the only meaningful gap for a low-complexity two-param tool.

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 0% for two parameters, so the description carries the burden and largely fails it: 'text' is only implied by 'scans a draft', and the 'language' parameter (default 'en') is never mentioned, leaving multilingual behavior undocumented.

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+resource: it lints a draft for AI-footprint patterns and returns a human-likeness score with fixes. It enumerates the exact patterns detected (tell-words, the 'not just X but Y' template, em-dash overuse), which clearly separates it from siblings like seo_audit or seo_content_brief.

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?

"Run it on any draft BEFORE publishing" gives a clear trigger point, and the description explicitly bounds the tool's purpose (quality signal, not detector evasion). It does not name an alternative tool or a when-not-to-use condition, so it falls short of a 5.

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