What proofread.law checks against

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

Beyond the readOnly and idempotent annotations, the description adds meaningful behavioral details: nothing submitted is stored, known gaps and un-checked item types are disclosed, and the call has no billing impact. This gives the agent accurate expectations about side effects and scope.

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 compact and well-structured, with the main claim front-loaded and parenthetical details kept relevant. Every clause adds either content coverage, usage timing, or a caveat about cost, so no sentence is wasted.

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 parameterless informational tool with no output schema, the description is complete: it explains what the result contains, when to invoke the tool, and the privacy/billing implications. An agent has everything needed to decide to call it and to understand the response.

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?

The tool has zero parameters and the schema coverage is 100%, so there is nothing for the description to clarify about inputs. The description instead explains what information the call returns, which is the appropriate contribution for a parameterless tool.

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 exactly what the tool returns: a coverage statement and a storage notice, with the scope of the coverage spelled out. It is clearly distinguished from the sibling tools, which perform checking, resolution, or report rendering, by being the meta-informational tool.

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 gives explicit trigger conditions: use it when a user asks what the check covers, how current it is, or what happens to their text. It also clarifies that the call is free and not counted as a check, which prevents misuse.

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