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

With no annotations, the description fully discloses behavior: deterministic string matching, no LLM calls, two output lists (detected/suggested), and a 10,000 character limit. This goes beyond basic operation to explain confidently how it works and what to expect, leaving no major unknowns.

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?

Three tightly packed sentences: first defines the operation, second details output, third provides usage context and alternative. No redundant filler; every sentence adds new information and the description stays readable.

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?

For a single-parameter tool with no annotations or output schema, this description is complete: it explains the process, constraints, output content, and when to use vs. avoid it. The only minor omission is an exact structured return format, but the free-text description of two lists is sufficient for an agent, especially given no formal output schema exists.

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% with a well-described 'text' parameter. The description only reiterates the character limit ('Maximum 10,000 characters') already in the schema, adding no new parameter semantics. Baseline 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?

Description states a specific action ('Scans a block of text against all published Arco Lexicon terms') and resource. It clearly differentiates from sibling tools by explicitly noting when to use verify_alignment instead, and the distinct output structure (detected vs. suggested terms) separates it from lookup/list tools.

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?

Provides explicit use case: 'Use this to audit an article or passage for correct and complete Arco terminology.' Also names an alternative tool (verify_alignment) and contrasts its purpose ('scored alignment report' vs. 'term discovery list'), giving clear when-to/not-to guidance.

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