Check text style

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

Goes well beyond the readOnly/idempotent/openWorld annotations: it discloses that no LLM call, API key or quota debit occurs, that text leaves for neuroslop.net (external network egress), that the tool abstains when evidence is thin, and that the 0–100 score is not an AI-authorship probability. Those are exactly the behavioral and interpretive facts an agent needs.

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?

Short, dense and front-loaded: cost/mechanism first, then return shape, coverage caveat, then the misinterpretation warning. Every sentence carries distinct information with no repetition.

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?

With an output schema present, the description needn't detail return values, and it still characterizes them at a high level. Cost, privacy egress, language coverage and score interpretation are all covered, leaving nothing an agent needs before calling.

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 coverage is 100% and the single 'text' parameter is fully documented in-schema, so the baseline applies. The description adds only the indirect hint that language is detected automatically and that the text is transmitted externally, not new semantics for the parameter itself.

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+resource: deterministic style analysis of text, with the returned artifacts named (style markers, applicability, abstention). It never names the sibling tools humanize/clean, so the agent must infer that this one only analyzes rather than rewrites.

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 (analysis, not transformation) and the cost-free nature encourages calling it, but there is no explicit 'use this when… / use neuroslop_humanize instead when…' routing. The RU/EN coverage note is the only near-guidance, and it concerns limits rather than tool selection.

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