check_grammar

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains exactly what the tool returns: per-error original-to-corrected pairs, a full corrected sentence, and a no-errors message. It also documents the tool's scope by listing ignored categories. This is transparent for a text-processing tool, though it does not mention side effects or whether the tool is read-only (likely irrelevant here).

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 well-structured and front-loaded with the primary purpose. It uses bullets to present output format details and an IGNORE section for scope boundaries. Every sentence contributes value, and there is no fluff or redundancy. It is appropriately sized for the information it conveys.

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?

Since there is no output schema, the description fully explains return values, including the structured correction format, the full corrected sentence, and the no-errors case. It also covers edge cases through the IGNORE list. Nothing an agent would need to know to call this tool correctly is missing.

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% because the single parameter 'text' is described as 'The text to check for grammar errors.' The tool description does not add substantial new meaning beyond the schema; it only repeats that the text is provided and indicates the analysis flow. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema already fully documents the parameter.

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 clearly states the tool's function: 'Check and correct English grammar in the provided text.' It names the specific verb (check/correct), resource (English grammar in text), and even specifies the output format. No siblings exist, so differentiation is not needed; the purpose is unambiguous.

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 provides clear context for when to use the tool: whenever grammar checking of English text is needed. It also gives explicit guidance on what to ignore (capitalization, punctuation, technical terms, logs), which helps the agent know what not to expect from the tool. Since there are no sibling tools, exclusion guidance is not required.

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