suggest_alternatives

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description bears the full burden, yet it says nothing about what the tool returns, whether it is read-only, how it behaves on already-clean input, or any cost/latency characteristics. Only the barest statement of intent is given.

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 tight sentence with no filler and the purpose front-loaded. It is efficient, though the brevity contributes to the other gaps.

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?

With two parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description should explain the tone control and what a response looks like. As written it omits both, so an agent cannot predict the output shape or the effect of the unlabeled enum.

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 coverage is 50%: the 'text' parameter is documented in the schema, but 'tone' (an enum of formal/casual/humorous/professional) has no description anywhere, and the tool description never mentions it. The description therefore does not compensate for the coverage gap.

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 pairs a specific verb ("Suggest") with a specific resource ("clean alternatives for profane content"), so an agent can tell what it produces. It does not, however, distinguish itself from close siblings like censor_text or check_profanity, leaving the boundary implicit.

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?

Usage is implied: you have profane text and want replacement suggestions rather than detection or blanket censorship. There is no explicit statement of when to prefer this over censor_text, nor any exclusion or prerequisite.

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