check_sensitive_words

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses free tier limits (100 requests/day without token), authentication requirement (WORDSCHECK_ACCESS_TOKEN for unlimited), max character length (3000), and return information (risk level, category, position, suggestions). Missing details on error handling or rate limiting prevent a higher score.

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 concise (two sentences plus a note about limits) and well-structured: first sentence declares purpose and output, second sentence provides usage guidance. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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 description covers usage context, authentication, limits, and return values. However, it lacks explicit output format details (e.g., whether results are an array or object). Given no output schema, a slightly more structured specification would improve completeness.

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%, so the schema already documents both parameters. The description adds value by naming example content types for the 'text' parameter, but does not provide critical information beyond the schema. 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?

The description clearly states the tool's function: detecting sensitive words in Chinese text for specific social media platforms. It lists platforms (Xiaohongshu, Douyin, etc.) and typical use cases, effectively distinguishing it from the sibling tool 'get_word_suggestions' which likely provides suggestions rather than detection.

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 explicitly advises using the tool for checking marketing copy, product descriptions, live-streaming scripts, or social media posts, providing clear context. However, it does not specify when not to use it or mention alternative tools beyond the implied sibling.

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