arabic_normalize

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

Annotations already declare the tool read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds only the vague notion that Unicode rules are individually controlled, which mostly restates the boolean flags in the schema rather than disclosing meaningful behavioral details like output shape or edge cases.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler words. It is efficiently worded, but the extreme brevity might underspecify a tool with 8 parameters; still, for pure conciseness it scores well.

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 tool's complexity (8 parameters, a visible sibling, and no schema-level descriptions), a one-sentence description is insufficient. It does not explain parameter choices, suggest when normalization is preferable to search preparation, or mention any behavior beyond the bare action, making the overall context incomplete despite annotations and output schema.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate by explaining parameters, but it does not name or define any of the 8 properties. The phrase 'individually controlled Unicode rules' hints at the boolean toggles but provides no concrete meaning for 'unify_yeh', 'strip_diacritics', or the others, leaving the agent to rely on parameter names alone.

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 clear verb ('Normalize') and resource ('Arabic text'), and the phrase 'individually controlled Unicode rules' signals that the tool applies configurable transformations. However, it does not differentiate this tool from its sibling 'arabic_prepare_for_search', so an agent cannot immediately tell which normalization-oriented tool to pick.

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 offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus 'arabic_prepare_for_search', nor does it mention any exclusions or alternative tools. An agent would have to infer usage from the tool name and schema, which is insufficient for selecting between siblings.

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