audit_content

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

With no annotations, the description must fully disclose behavior. It states the tool analyzes and detects issues, but does not clarify whether it is read-only, what side effects exist, or what happens after detection (e.g., returns a report). This leaves gaps for agent decision-making.

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 concise sentence that is front-loaded with the key action and timing. It is appropriately brief, though it could benefit from a slightly more structured breakdown of output or usage notes.

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 no output schema and sparse annotations, the description is incomplete. It describes what the tool detects but does not explain the return value or how results are presented, leaving the agent without enough context to interpret tool output.

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 only parameter 'text' is described identically in schema and description. Since schema coverage is 100%, the description adds no extra meaning beyond what the schema already provides, resulting in baseline performance.

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 analyzes Portuguese text before translation, detecting specific issues like long sentences, acronyms, and hard-to-sign excerpts. It distinguishes from siblings that perform translation or validation.

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?

Explicitly mentions 'ANTES de traduzir' (BEFORE translating), providing clear usage timing. However, it does not explicitly list alternative tools or exclusions, though the context inherently differentiates it from post-translation tools.

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