check_grammar

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only names the check types and the backend; it does not disclose behavior such as whether the query text is transmitted to an external service (LanguageTool), whether there are length limits, how the result body is structured beyond the output schema, or what happens on an unsupported language. For an unannotated tool this is a meaningful gap.

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?

A single declarative sentence, front-loaded with the verb and object, that wastes no words. It names the three issue categories and the backend in a compact way. Properly sized for the tool's simplicity.

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?

The output schema covers return values and the input schema fully documents parameters, so those are handled. But with no annotations, the description omits usage guidance, external-service disclosure, and any operational limits. Adequate for a simple two-parameter checker, yet with clear gaps around behavioral context.

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 'text' and 'language' are already documented in the schema. The description adds the type-of-issues context (grammar, spelling, style) but does not add parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate given 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?

States a specific verb ('Check'), resource ('text'), and the range of issues covered (grammar, spelling, style), with a named backend ('LanguageTool'). It is clear what the tool does. With no sibling tools to differentiate against, it cannot distinguish itself further, so it stops short of a 5.

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 implies usage — the agent uses this tool whenever text needs a language quality check — but it provides no explicit context about when to use it versus alternatives, nor any exclusions or prerequisites. No siblings exist, so the routing burden is low, but the guidance is still only implied rather than stated.

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