greet

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry behavioral context. It states the output shape, default language behavior, and accepted language forms, and the operation is inherently non-mutating. It stops short of explicitly stating 'no side effects' or auth requirements, but for a simple greeting generator the behavior is transparent enough.

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 short and front-loaded, with purpose first and parameter details after. The final sentence explaining the return object is redundant because an output schema exists, so not every sentence fully earns its place, but the overall structure is efficient.

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 simple two-parameter tool with full schema coverage and an output schema, the description covers the essential invocation details: default language, supported languages, optional name, and expected behavior. Nothing an agent needs in order to call it correctly is missing.

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%, so both parameters are already well documented in the input schema. The description repeats the language input modes, default behavior, and name personalization without adding syntax or constraints beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 (Return) and resource (friendly greeting), plus the default language, supported languages, and optional personalization. It makes the tool's function immediately clear and is easily distinguished from the unrelated server_info sibling.

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 by the purpose: an agent can infer to call this when a greeting is needed. The description also explains that language can be omitted to default to English and lists supported values, but it gives no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative routing. With only server_info as a sibling, this implied guidance is adequate.

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