humanizer-scan

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

Annotations already mark the tool as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds meaningful behavioral context: it is a category counter, it calibrates editing volume, and it deliberately refrains from authorship judgments. This goes beyond the annotations without contradicting them.

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 compact and front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by an important exclusion. It has no fluff, but the two clauses run together without clear separation, slightly reducing structural clarity.

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 presence of a full input schema, an output schema, and strong annotations, the description supplies the key missing contextual information: what the tool measures, how it is meant to be used, and what it must not be used for. It is sufficient for correct invocation, though it could explicitly mention alternatives.

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%, so the schema already explains both parameters and the genre enum's effective values. The description does not add parameter-level detail, but the baseline of 3 applies because the schema carries the full semantic burden.

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 function: detecting 'soft signs' of machine writing and providing a category counter that calibrates the volume of editing. It also distinguishes itself from verdict-style tools by explicitly denying authorship verdicts, though it does not name sibling tools or use an explicit verb like 'scan'.

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 gives a clear negative usage boundary: it does not provide an authorship verdict in any combination of features. This tells the agent when not to rely on it, but it does not name alternatives or explicitly state when to prefer sibling tools, so it falls short of full guidance.

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