check_grammar

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

No annotations provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It explains it uses a language model, returns corrected text and edits, supports style modes, and has character limits per tier. However, it does not mention rate limits, authentication needs, or potential side effects beyond what is described.

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 well-structured with separate sections for input, output, and tiers. It is front-loaded with the main purpose. However, it is slightly verbose with repetition (e.g., 'Check and rewrite' appears twice). Still, it is clear and organized.

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 absence of an output schema, the description fully details the return structure ('corrected', 'edits', 'chars_in', 'chars_out') and explains the edits list composition. It also covers character limits for free and pro tiers, providing a complete picture of tool behavior.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description fully explains both parameters: 'text' as the input text, and 'style' with a list of options and defaults. It adds significant meaning beyond the schema's minimal type definitions.

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 checks and rewrites text for grammar, spelling, punctuation, and style. It also describes the output (corrected text and edit list). It is distinct from sibling tools which are validation, lookup, and other text processing tools like translate or summarize.

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 explains what the tool does and its style options, but does not provide guidance on when to use this tool versus alternate sibling tools (e.g., translate_text, summarize_text, redact_text). No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use criteria.

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