quillbot_detect

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

The description goes beyond the annotations by disclosing that the text leaves the system to an external website (consistent with openWorldHint=true and readOnlyHint=false), that a validated integration is required, and that results do not certify authorship. That is meaningful behavioral context the structured fields do not carry.

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 tightly packed sentences with no waste; the action and its output are front-loaded before the caveats. Efficient without omitting critical warnings.

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?

With no output schema, the description usefully characterizes the return ('resultado literal y fragmentos señalados') and states the integration prerequisite and non-certification limit. Complete enough to call the tool correctly, though sibling differentiation is absent.

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?

There is a single self-evident 'text' parameter with 0% schema description coverage. The description adds one semantic note ('texto autorizado', i.e., authorization constraint) but no format or length guidance, so it only marginally compensates for the schema gap.

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 concrete verb+resource: it sends authorized text to QuillBot's web and returns the literal result plus flagged fragments. An agent can tell what the tool produces. It does not, however, distinguish itself from quillbot_inspect or quillbot_status, so sibling routing stays ambiguous.

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?

A prerequisite is given ('Requiere integración validada'), which is genuine usage context, and 'No certifica autoría' acts as a scope caveat. But there is no when-to-use vs when-to-use-an-alternative guidance relative to the sibling tools.

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