Grammarly Text Optimizer

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

The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations: it explains the iterative nature of 'optimize' mode, mentions threshold-based rewriting, and implies external API calls to Grammarly. Annotations cover basic hints (not read-only, open world, non-idempotent, non-destructive), but the description usefully elaborates on the optimization process without contradicting them.

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 efficiently structured in two sentences: the first states the core purpose, and the second details the three modes with clear, front-loaded explanations. Every phrase contributes essential information without redundancy, making it easy to parse quickly.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (11 parameters, multiple modes) and rich structured data (annotations, 91% schema coverage, output schema present), the description is complete enough. It covers the key behavioral aspects (scoring vs. rewriting) and mode differences, while relying on the output schema for return values and the schema for parameter details, avoiding unnecessary duplication.

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?

With 91% schema description coverage, the schema already documents most parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal parameter semantics by briefly explaining the three modes, which aligns with the 'mode' parameter's enum descriptions. It doesn't provide additional meaning for other parameters beyond what the schema offers, meeting the baseline for high coverage.

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 specific verbs ('Get AI detection and plagiarism scores', 'optionally rewriting text') and resources ('from Grammarly'). It distinguishes the three operational modes (score_only, analyze, optimize) with precise functionality for each, making the purpose unambiguous even without sibling tools for comparison.

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 provides clear context for when to use each mode by explaining their distinct behaviors: 'score_only' for scores only, 'analyze' for scores plus recommendations, and 'optimize' for iterative rewriting. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives (though no siblings exist) or any prerequisites/exclusions for usage.

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