humanize_text

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 gives no information about side effects, authentication requirements, rate limits, or what happens to the input text. The phrase 'Humanize text' is completely opaque regarding API behavior.

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?

Although the description is a single sentence, it provides no substantive value beyond restating the tool name. This is under-specification rather than conciseness, as no information is front-loaded to aid the agent.

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?

The tool has two parameters, no schema descriptions, and no annotations, yet the description fails to address what humanization does, what 'mode' controls, or any usage conditions. Even with an output schema present, the description is grossly incomplete for correct invocation.

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 schema has 0% description coverage, and the description does not explain the 'text' parameter beyond the tool name, while completely ignoring the optional 'mode' parameter. This leaves the agent without essential parameter semantics, especially for 'mode' which has no definition.

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 'Humanize text using the Ryter Pro API' essentially restates the tool name without explaining what 'humanize' means or what the transformation entails. It does not distinguish the tool from its sibling ryterpro_api_info, providing no unique functional context.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus the sibling tool or any other alternatives. The description lacks any indication of typical use cases, prerequisites, or contexts where this tool is appropriate.

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