check_font_name

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It states that the tool queries a public API and returns match counts, trademark info, review status, timestamp, and a link. It also discloses the important 'not legal clearance' caveat, giving the agent a realistic sense of what the operation does and does not guarantee.

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 efficiently structured: a one-sentence summary, a concise explanation of the query and returned data, a crucial caveat, and a single-argument Args section. Every sentence adds value and is front-loaded with the core purpose.

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 one-parameter external lookup tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the essential behavioral, return-value, and parameter semantics. It could go slightly further by noting external API dependencies or potential failure modes, but the agent has enough information to invoke the tool correctly and interpret its result.

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?

The input schema only says 'name' is a string, with no description, so the schema coverage is 0%. The description compensates fully by defining the parameter: 'Proposed typeface family name to check.' This is exactly the semantic context an agent needs to supply the correct value.

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 opens with 'Screen one proposed typeface family name for known collisions,' which names a specific verb, resource, and goal. It clearly differentiates this tool from sibling checking tools like check_language_support and check_glyphset_coverage, which target different font properties.

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 description conveys a clear usage context: use this to screen a typeface name before relying on it. It also provides an explicit limitation ('not legal clearance') and warns that no match does not guarantee availability, though it does not name a specific sibling alternative or define when-not-to-use conditions beyond that.

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