fanar_moderate

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose the model prerequisite and the bilingual scope. However, it never says what the scoring produces (scale, categories, whether all content is judged or only flagged content), which matters for a judge/scoring tool with no output schema.

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?

Two tight sentences with zero filler; the core action and the language scope come first, the prerequisite last. Every clause earns its place.

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?

No output schema and no annotations exist, yet the description never characterizes the returned score/thresholds, which is the primary thing a caller needs in order to use the result. The input side is adequately covered for a two-parameter 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%, so the description must compensate; it identifies the two inputs semantically as a prompt/response pair, which is genuinely useful mapping. It adds no further detail such as size limits, language-per-field expectations, or whether the response must come from a specific model.

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 (Score), a specific resource (prompt and response pair), the engine (FanarGuard) and the scoring dimensions (safety, cultural awareness). It is unmistakably different from the chat/translate/QA siblings, though it does not name an alternative to route away from.

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 use case (safety and cultural moderation of an exchange) and gives one concrete prerequisite: Fanar-Guard-2 must be on the key. There is no explicit when-not guidance or pointer to a sibling to use instead.

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