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

Annotations already declare this is read-only, idempotent, and closed-world. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond annotations: it clarifies that results are findings with character offsets rather than corrected text, and that grammar agreement/case are out of scope. It does not need to repeat return structure because an output schema exists.

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 front-loaded with the purpose and check list, then closes with two critical scope limits. Every sentence earns its place; there is no filler 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?

An output schema exists, annotations cover safety and idempotency, and the schema documents all parameters. The description supplies the remaining conceptual completeness: what evidence is returned, what is not returned, and which grammar issues are excluded.

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%, so all three parameters are already documented. The description reinforces the optional 'pairings' behavior by describing unnatural verb + noun pairs, but adds little syntax or semantic detail beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the parameter-level work.

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 gives a clear resource and enumerates the specific proofreading checks performed: unknown words, misspellings, diacritics, repetition, and optional pairings. It also distinguishes the output from correction tools by stating it returns findings with offsets, not corrected text. It stops short of explicitly naming sibling tools or directly contrasting itself with check_orthography.

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 by the phrase 'Proofreading evidence for a text' and by the listed checks, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance or named alternatives. The negative scope ('Grammar ... is not checked' and 'not a corrected text') helps, but does not fully route the agent among siblings such as check_orthography or suggest_replacements.

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