analyze_arabic_typography

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It lists audit dimensions but does not state that the tool is read-only, what the output format is, or any side effects. The verb 'audits' implies non-destructive analysis, but this is not explicit.

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?

A single, efficient sentence that front-loads the verb and specifies exactly what is checked. No filler.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description does not describe the return value or structure of the audit report. It also omits any behavioral prerequisites or limitations, such as whether the audit supports mixed-language snippets or requires specific font availability.

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 80% with four of five parameters described. The tool description does not directly map its audit dimensions to parameters, but the schema itself is mostly self-explanatory, so baseline 3 applies.

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 a specific verb 'Audits' and identifies the resource as 'an Arabic or bilingual text snippet,' listing four concrete auditing dimensions. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'arabic_typography' which may focus on typography generally rather than auditing.

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?

No explicit when-to-use or alternative guidance is provided. Usage is implied by the audit verb, but the description does not clarify when to choose this over 'arabic_typography' or 'audit_bilingual_accessibility.'

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