check_dutch_text

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It discloses that the operation runs locally (implying privacy/offline behavior), returns unknown words with suggestions and positions (practical output behavior), and is non-destructive in nature. For a read-only spell-check tool this is genuinely useful behavioral context that an agent wouldn't infer otherwise.

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?

Two sentences with zero filler. The core function and implementation are front-loaded in the first clause, output behavior follows immediately, and the usage guidance closes it out. Every word earns its place.

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 no output schema, the description sensibly discloses return shape ('unknown words with suggestions and positions'). For a 2-parameter tool at 100% schema coverage, it covers the language, scope, and use cases. It omits only minor details like behavior on fully correct text, but nothing required to call it correctly is missing.

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%: both 'text' and 'context' already have descriptions in the schema, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add meaning beyond the schema for these parameters — it doesn't elaborate on the 'context' label's purpose or constrain input format. The description's mention of 'positions' refers to output, not parameters, so no added parametric 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?

States a specific verb ('spell-check'), resource ('Dutch text'), and implementation ('OpenTaal/hunspell'). Naming 'Dutch' immediately disambiguates it from sibling check_us_english_text, and 'text' vs 'word' distinguishes it from validate_dutch_word and dutch_word_details. An agent can tell these apart from the first sentence.

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?

Gives concrete when-to-use guidance: 'Use for CVs, cover letters, blog articles, any Dutch prose.' This clarifies the intended input scope (full prose) and implies the alternative for English text, though it stops short of explicitly naming check_us_english_text or stating when not to use it. Clear context with mild exclusion gaps.

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