detect_language

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavior. It adds one useful behavioral fact (payment via x402), but says nothing about the actual operation, return format, or limitations, leaving the agent mostly in the dark.

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 no wasted words. However, the 'Other Utilities tool' fragment adds little value and the brevity comes at the cost of essential detail.

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 annotations, no output schema, and a generic params wrapper, the description is too sparse to be complete. It states cost but omits the expected input shape, output, and any usage caveats, so an agent cannot reliably select or invoke the tool.

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's only parameter is a generic 'params' object, so the 100% schema coverage metric is misleading; it defines no real fields. The description adds no information about what input detect_language requires (e.g., text to classify), making it impossible to construct a call correctly.

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 merely restates the tool name ('detect language') and assigns it to a generic 'Other Utilities' category. It identifies neither the specific input expected nor how it differs from sibling utilities.

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?

Only mention of usage is the cost note ('Costs $0.001 USDC via x402'), which is not a usage guideline. There is no statement of when to choose detect_language over alternatives like translate or list_languages, nor any preconditions.

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