validate_us_word

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals that the check is quick and local ('lokaal'), that it returns suggestions ('met suggesties'), and that it detects British spelling for individual words. This provides meaningful behavioral context beyond the mere existence of the operation.

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?

One compact sentence delivers the operation, scope, language standard, locality, and output behavior with no filler or redundancy. Every word earns its place and the core purpose is front-loaded.

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 single-parameter validation tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential context: what is checked, under which spelling standard, and what output to expect (suggestions). It could mention exact return format, but the low complexity and the hint about suggestions make it sufficiently 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 already describes the only parameter 'word' as a 'Single English word' with 100% coverage. The description reinforces the meaning by specifying US English and one-word scope, but it does not add new parameter-level syntax or format details. 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 the exact verb-resource pair ('Check ... of één Engels woord correct gespeld is volgens US English') and adds concrete scope: one word, US English, with suggestions, plus British spelling detection. This clearly differentiates it from the text-level sibling check_us_english_text and the Dutch-language tools.

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 makes the intended use context clear: validating a single English word against US English. It implies this is not for full texts or Dutch words, but it does not explicitly point to alternatives or state when not to use it. Thus it is clear context without formal exclusions.

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