smog_index

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states the tool calculates a grade but does not disclose any behavioral traits such as idempotency, safety, rate limits, or side effects. Given the simple calculation, it is likely safe, but the description fails to confirm this.

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 extremely concise, consisting of a single sentence and a parameter list. Every word is necessary, with no fluff or 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?

The tool has an output schema, so the description does not need to explain return values. However, given the sibling tool set includes many readability metrics, the description lacks context about what SMOG index is or when to use it, making it minimally complete.

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 schema coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. The description includes a Parameters section explaining that 'text' is the text to calculate the SMOG index for, adding meaning beyond the schema's bare type. However, it is minimal and does not provide format or examples.

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 clearly states the tool calculates the SMOG readability grade, which is a specific verb and resource. It also lists the parameter. However, it does not differentiate from other readability tools like gunning_fog_score or fry_readability, so it loses a point for lack of sibling differentiation.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus other readability metrics. There is no mention of scenarios, alternatives, or prerequisites, leaving the agent without context for selection.

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