capabilities

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

With no annotations and no output schema, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the content of the report (provider config plus fallback status) and implies a non-mutating diagnostic, but never states that it has no side effects, whether it requires credentials, or how the result is structured beyond three examples.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action in the first sentence and the usage trigger immediately after; every clause carries information. The hard line breaks inside sentences are slightly awkward but waste no words.

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?

For a zero-parameter, output-schema-less diagnostic, the description gives enough to call it confidently and interpret the headline results. It stops short of describing the full shape of the response, which an agent would otherwise have to discover by calling it.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so there is no parameter semantics to document; the baseline for an empty schema is 4. The description correctly implies the call is unconditional with no required input.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: reports which providers are configured and which keyless fallbacks are active. It further anchors the purpose by naming three concrete sibling tools whose behavior it explains, so an agent can distinguish it from every other diagnostic in the list.

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?

Gives an explicit trigger condition ('Call this first when something behaves unexpectedly') and enumerates the specific uncertainties it resolves: verify_news's search key, humanize_text server-side rewriting, and score_ai_text's detector mode. This is exactly the when-to-use guidance an agent needs.

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