humanizer-facts

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

The description discloses behavioral details beyond the annotations: it outputs lost/added/changed with positions, notes that 'added' does not affect the exit code, and states it does not provide authorship/quality/style verdicts. These details meaningfully extend the readOnly/idempotent annotations and help an agent set expectations.

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 dense and front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by exclusions and behavioral notes. It is somewhat run-on but every clause adds relevant information; no filler or repetition.

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 output schema exists and the two parameters are fully documented, the description covers the remaining context: scope, exclusions, fact categories, output shape, and exit-code behavior. An agent has enough information to decide when to use this tool and what result to expect.

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 description coverage is 100%: both text_before and text_after have explanatory descriptions in the schema. The tool description itself does not add parameter-level meaning beyond what is already in the schema, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource ('сверка фактов двух версий текста') and enumerates fact categories (numbers, dates, URLs, e-mail, etc.). This makes the tool's function quite clear, but it does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools by name, relying instead on the distinct fact-checking domain.

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 'Когда не использовать' section explicitly lists exclusions: non-Russian texts, source code, and authorship/quality/style verdicts. This gives clear when-not-to-use guidance, though it does not name alternative sibling tools, so the when-to-use guidance is only implied rather than contrasted with alternatives.

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