correct_japanese_sentence

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It states the tool corrects and explains awkwardness, but does not disclose important traits such as whether it modifies the sentence, requires authenticity, or any limitations (e.g., only works for Japanese, input constraints). The behavior is underspecified.

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 a single sentence that gets straight to the point: it corrects and explains. It is concise and front-loaded with the action. However, it omits important details that could be added without bloat, so it does not earn a 5.

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 lack of output schema and annotations, and four parameters (three optional) with unclear semantics, the description is insufficient. It does not explain what the output format is, how optional parameters affect behavior, or any prerequisites. A correction tool for Japanese sentences requires more context for reliable use.

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 only 25% (only user_sentence has a description). The tool's description adds little beyond restating user_sentence as a user-written Japanese sentence. It does not explain the roles of tone, learner_level, or intended_meaning parameters, leaving the agent to infer their impact from enum names alone.

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 verb (교정하다 - correct, 설명하다 - explain) and the resource (일본어 문장 - Japanese sentence). It specifies the audience (초급자 기준 - beginner level) and implies it is for self-written sentences. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'translate_kakao_message' or 'explain_expression'.

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 implies usage for correcting user-written Japanese sentences, but does not provide explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. There is no mention of alternatives or conditions that would make this tool more appropriate than siblings, such as 'explain_expression' for individual expressions.

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