Read an AI-detection report

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses that the operation is free, does not start a job, and returns the AI percentage and flagged passages – key behavioral traits for a read-only tool. It could add more about error handling or output format, but the core transparency is present.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the purpose and outputs. The second sentence adds cost and chaining guidance. No wasted words.

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?

For a read tool with 3 parameters and no output schema, the description explains the return values (AI percentage and flagged passages), the cost/free behavior, and connects to humanize_document. This is sufficient for an agent to decide and invoke.

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 100%, so all three parameters already have descriptions. The tool description does not add further parameter-level meaning beyond mentioning flagged passages (which relates to include_segments). Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

Description states 'Read a Turnitin or iThenticate AI Writing report PDF: returns the overall AI percentage and the flagged passages' – a specific verb with a clear resource and output. It also distinguishes itself from humanize_document by referencing it as a separate rewrite tool.

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 says 'Free - reads the file without starting a job', establishing a clear when-to-use justification. It also directs the user to 'Pass the same report to humanize_document to rewrite only what was flagged', an explicit alternative for the next step.

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