check_us_english_text

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses that the tool checks typos via hunspell en_US and flags British spellings/vocabulary with US replacements, which is useful. However, it does not disclose whether it returns a list of suggestions, a corrected version, or only a pass/fail result, and no output schema is provided.

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 two sentences, front-loads the main action, and uses parenthetical examples efficiently. Every sentence adds value: the first defines behavior, the second defines target use cases.

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 is simple (one required parameter, no nested objects), and the schema fully covers the parameter. However, there is no output schema and no annotation, so the absence of return-format information is a meaningful gap: an agent can invoke the tool correctly but cannot predict what the result will look like.

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% for the single 'text' parameter, so the schema already defines it as 'The English text to check.' The description adds US-compliance context and examples, but it does not add new parameter-level constraints or formatting details, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 states a specific verb and resource: checking English text for US English compliance, covering typos and British vocabulary. It differentiates itself from the Dutch-focused siblings by explicitly targeting US English, and the examples make the scope concrete.

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 gives clear context for when to use the tool: 'Use for EN pages, blogs, US-facing copy.' It does not explicitly mention alternatives or say when not to use it, but the guidance is sufficient to select it over the Dutch-oriented siblings.

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