check_text_level

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

With no annotations, the description carries full behavioral burden but only restates the 5000-character limit, which is already in the schema. It does not disclose return format, accuracy, whether the operation is read-only, or any side effects or processing traits.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence that wastes no words. It is appropriately terse, though the extreme brevity means it omits information needed elsewhere rather than being overly verbose.

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 simple one-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description should at least hint at the return format (e.g., what HSK level output looks like) and confirm the read-only nature. It instead provides only the input constraint, leaving key contextual gaps.

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 0% for the single required parameter, so the description must compensate. It adds only that the input should be 'Chinese text (up to 5000 characters),' but the length constraint duplicates the schema and it omits expected format details such as simplified vs. traditional characters or handling of mixed-language text.

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 ('Estimate') and resource ('HSK level of Chinese text'), which clearly identifies the tool's function. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings like get_level_check_link or list_words_by_level, but the purpose is distinct enough for an agent to understand.

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?

Provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_level_check_link or lookup_word. There are no prerequisites, exclusions, or contextual triggers mentioned; usage is only implied by the description.

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