validate_dutch_word

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the burden. It adds useful context: the check is local ('lokaal') and fast, and it returns suggestions for misspelled words. However, it does not disclose what happens for correctly spelled words (e.g., return format, success indicator) or any limitations, such as handling of multi-word phrases or case sensitivity. The transparency is partial.

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 a single, concise sentence that front-loads the core purpose (check spelling) and key behavior (local, quick, suggestions). There is no fluff, and every word contributes to understanding. It is efficiently structured for quick scanning by an agent.

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?

For a simple one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential purpose and basic behavior. However, it omits the return format for valid vs. invalid words, which an agent would need to interpret the result. It also does not specify the language of suggestions or any edge-case behavior. Given the absence of annotations and output schema, the description is adequate but not fully self-sufficient.

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 already provides full coverage of the only parameter 'word' with a clear description ('Single Dutch word'). The tool description repeats this scope but adds no new semantic detail, such as accepted character sets or normalization rules. With 100% schema coverage, the baseline of 3 is appropriate; the description does not degrade or enhance parameter understanding.

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 checks the spelling of a single Dutch word and provides suggestions for misspellings. It specifies the resource (Dutch word) and the verb (check), and differentiates from siblings by limiting scope to a single word, which separates it from check_dutch_text for full text. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives.

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 phrase 'één Nederlands woord' (one Dutch word) implies usage for single-word validation rather than text, and 'quickly' suggests a lightweight check. But there is no explicit guidance on when to choose this over siblings like check_dutch_text or validate_us_word, nor any exclusions. The intended context is inferred rather than stated.

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