multi-wordcheck

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

No annotations exist, so the description bears the full burden. It only says 'returns detection results' without clarifying the output format, whether it blocks on sensitive words, or how multi-platform results are aggregated. This is a thin disclosure for an unannotated tool.

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 efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose. There is no wasted wording, though it is arguably too sparse to cover behavioral details.

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 simplicity of the two-parameter schema, the description is minimally adequate, but with no output schema and no annotation, the vague 'returns detection results' leaves the agent unsure of what the response looks like. More detail about multi-platform result structure would improve completeness.

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 100%, with both 'content' and 'platform' clearly described in the input schema. The description adds no new parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 states a specific verb (detect) and resource (prohibited/sensitive words in copy), and the 'multi-platform' qualifier differentiates it from single-platform siblings like xiaohongshu-prohibited-word, douyin-prohibited-word, and wechat-prohibited-word. However, it does not list which platforms are covered, so it stops short of being fully precise.

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 word 'multi-platform' implies this tool is for checking across multiple platforms, but the description gives no explicit when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no mention of alternatives. Usage context is inferable but not stated.

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