arabic_typography

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It does enumerate the audit dimensions (optical alignment, font pairing, line-height compensation, ligature integrity), which gives some insight into behavior, but it does not disclose output format, side effects (though likely none), or any constraints.

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 a single, information-dense sentence with no filler. It front-loads the action and clearly enumerates the audit areas, achieving high conciseness.

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?

The tool has five parameters, no output schema, and no annotations. The description fails to explain what the audit produces (e.g., a report, score, recommendations) and does not clarify the meaning of `targetPlatform`. Additionally, the existence of the sibling `analyze_arabic_typography` creates ambiguity that is not resolved.

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% (4/5 params have descriptions), so baseline is 3. The tool description does not add any parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema, and `targetPlatform` remains unexplained in both schema and description.

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 ('Audits') and resource ('Arabic or bilingual text snippet') with four concrete focus areas. However, it does not differentiate from the similarly named sibling 'analyze_arabic_typography', so it falls short of a 5.

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 guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'analyze_arabic_typography' or 'audit_bilingual_accessibility'. There is no mention of when-not-to-use or prerequisites, so this dimension scores poorly.

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