check_bias

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It thoroughly covers side effects (read-only, stateless), authentication (none for basic, pro requires key), rate limits (10/day free, unlimited pro), error handling (structured errors), idempotency (fully idempotent), and data privacy (local processing). This is comprehensive and exceeds typical transparency.

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?

Well-structured with sections, but redundant: the initial 'Behavior' paragraph repeats information from the later 'Behavioral Transparency' section. Could be more concise by removing duplication.

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 existence of an output schema (not shown), description doesn't need to explain return values. It covers rate limits, error handling, idempotency, and data privacy. However, it lacks details on the output structure (e.g., list of biased terms with alternatives) and could clarify the api_key parameter's optionality.

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 description must compensate. It provides basic descriptions for 'text' and 'api_key', but the api_key description ('The api key to analyze or process') is unhelpful and does not clarify its optional nature or purpose. Only partial value added.

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 states a specific verb ('Check'), resource ('job description'), and action ('suggest alternatives'). It clearly distinguishes from siblings like 'analyze_requirements' or 'generate_job_description' by focusing on bias and inclusivity.

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?

Includes explicit 'When to use' and 'When NOT to use' sections, providing context and exclusion criteria. However, the 'when to use' is somewhat generic ('structured analysis or classification') and does not differentiate from sibling tools.

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