Arabic text tools

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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, and closed-world behavior, and the description adds useful operational context: it lists the transformations, says it returns letter/word/character counts, and notes that results can be written to an output path. It does not discuss limits or failure cases, but the safety profile is sufficiently covered by annotations.

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 front-loaded with purpose and mode definitions, and the dense operational detail is justified by the two-mode, 13-parameter tool. It could be more scannable with structured formatting, and the trailing web-version note is not essential to invocation.

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?

Given 13 optional parameters, full schema description coverage, and no output schema, the description is largely complete: it covers both modes, input methods, return counts, and output-file behavior indirectly. Minor gaps remain around parameter interactions and edge cases, but the schema handles those details.

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 all 13 parameters are already documented in the schema. The description adds some mode-level context and names several transformations, but it largely repeats schema content and does not add syntax or interaction details beyond the structured fields.

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 resource, Arabic text, and enumerates concrete transformations for both the "clean" and "arabizi" modes. It clearly distinguishes the two modes from each other, though it does not explicitly contrast the tool with siblings such as text_clean.

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 explains what each mode does and that the caller should provide "text" or a file "path", which implies when each mode is appropriate. However, it gives no explicit when-to-use guidance, exclusions, or alternatives such as text_clean for non-Arabic cleanup.

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