textokit_cartas_ar

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden, and it does disclose the critical behavior that isn't in structured data: 0.005 USDC per call via x402 on Base from the caller's wallet. It says nothing about what the call returns, output length/format, or whether an unpaid call fails versus prompts a payment flow.

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 short sentences with zero filler; the purpose is front-loaded and payment plus free-sample routing follow. Every clause carries information an agent can act on.

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 an 8-parameter, 6-required generation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers purpose and payment mechanics, which are the highest-risk unknowns. It omits any hint about the generated output's shape or size, a modest gap given the rich parameter schema says nothing about returns.

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%, including enum values and max lengths, so parameters are already fully documented. The description adds no meaning beyond the schema, which is the correct baseline for full coverage.

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 names a specific artifact ('Formal letter in Argentine Spanish'), which is more precise than the opaque tool name and distinguishes it from neighbors like textokit_translate_es or textokit_comparar_textos. It stops short of a verb ('generate/write'), but an agent can still infer this is a letter-generation 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?

It routes to textokit_sample for a free trial, which is a genuine alternative pointer, and the price implies a paid production path. However, there is no explicit statement of when to pick this versus the sample, nor any prerequisite or exclusion guidance.

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