check_abbreviation_hyphenation

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

Annotations already indicate read-only and idempotent behavior. The description adds significant behavioral context: it uses Vabamorf POS+form analysis, heuristic scope (phase-1, only 'Y' tags), character limit (100k), and limitations (custom acronyms not flagged). No contradictions.

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?

Every sentence is informative and earns its place. The description is front-loaded with the rule, examples, mechanism, limitations, and a scope note. No redundancy or filler.

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 single-parameter tool with a limited scope (specific hyphenation check), the description provides sufficient context: what it checks, how it works, limitations, and input constraints. An output schema exists but is not shown; the description does not need to cover return values.

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 fully describes the single parameter 'text' (100% coverage). The description adds an example of input text but no additional syntax or constraints beyond the character limit, meeting the baseline.

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 it performs a heuristic check for a specific Estonian rule (case-ending hyphenation on abbreviations), provides concrete examples (MCPst -> MCP-st), and distinguishes from sibling tools by targeting a particular error type.

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 on when to use (checking abbreviation hyphenation) and what it covers (Vabamorf-tagged abbreviations), but does not explicitly state when not to use or name alternatives, though siblings are available.

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