Lemmatizer

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

The description adds a useful behavioral warning: 'This operation may consume SEO Intellect account limits,' which is beyond what the annotations provide. It also identifies the upstream API dependency. It doesn't describe the async task workflow, but the schema already exposes timeout and task_id parameters.

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 brief and front-loaded with the core purpose. The account-limits warning is valuable. The sentence 'Upstream API tool: lemma' is somewhat redundant with the tool name and adds limited agent-facing value, preventing a top score.

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?

Despite the schema covering parameters well, the description does not explain the task-based workflow, how results are returned, or what a lemmatized output looks like. Since there is no output schema, an agent is left without enough context to confidently handle async behavior or interpret responses.

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 description adds meaning by clarifying that 'ngrammes' refers to n-grams, which helps interpret that parameter. However, most parameter semantics, especially task_id and polling behavior, are already covered by the input schema, so the description adds only marginal value.

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 the specific action 'Lemmatize text and optionally build n-grams,' making the tool's purpose immediately clear. This strongly differentiates it from the sibling tools, none of which are explicitly lemmatizers.

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 no guidance about when to choose this tool over alternatives or when not to use it. It does not mention any prerequisites or exclusions, so an agent must infer usage solely from the action name.

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