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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states that it 'Returns any flagged phrases found in the text,' which informs the user of the output type. However, it does not describe side effects, limitations, or how the detection works, making it only partially transparent.

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 long, front-loaded with the main purpose and followed by a clear statement of what it returns. Every word serves a purpose, and there is no redundant or filler content.

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 is simple with one parameter and no output schema. The description explains the input and output behavior sufficiently: check text and return flagged phrases. It does not mention response format details, but for a straightforward utility, this is reasonably complete. It could benefit from an example or more specifics about the flagged phrases, but it is not inadequate.

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%, with the parameter 'text' already described as 'The text to check for problematic phrases.' The tool description adds minimal extra meaning beyond the schema—it reiterates the text input but does not provide examples or additional details like formatting constraints. The baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose with a specific verb and resource: 'Check text for phrases that should be avoided to make content more human and less AI-like.' It explicitly mentions the action (checking text) and the goal (avoiding AI-like phrases), which distinguishes it from sibling tools that focus on fetching data or scraping content.

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?

The description implies the usage context (when editing content to make it more human), but it does not explicitly mention when to use this tool versus alternatives or provide exclusions. No sibling tools are named as alternatives, so the guidance is only implicit.

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