check_capitalization

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the tool is safe and idempotent. The description adds significant behavioral details beyond annotations: it's a lexicon-based heuristic (not full EÕS), it ignores sentence-initial capitalization and all-caps acronyms, it returns issues with specific fields (rule code, Estonian label, explanation, correction), and it notes a Phase-1 limitation. This fully informs the agent about behavior.

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 concise and well-structured: a clear header statement, bullet-like list of error types, clarifications on what is ignored, return format, input limit, and limitations. Every sentence adds value. No redundant or filler content.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (Estonian capitalization rules), the description is comprehensive. It covers input constraints (Estonian text, 100k char limit), output structure (rule code, Estonian label, explanation, correction), handling of special cases (sentence-initial, all-caps), and limitations (heuristic, not full EÕS, other checks exist). An output schema exists, so return values are documented elsewhere. The description is complete for agent usage.

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 single parameter 'text' is described in the schema as 'Estonian text to check for capitalization errors (Algustäheortograafia).' Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description does add some context about what the checker does, but the schema already conveys the required purpose. No additional semantic details beyond the schema are provided.

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's purpose as an Estonian capitalization checker (Algustäheortograafia), lists specific error types it detects (weekday, month, nationality names, country/language adjectives), and distinguishes itself from sibling tools by explicitly stating what it does not cover (compounds, punctuation, hyphenation). The verb 'scans' and resource 'Estonian text' provide a specific, actionable purpose.

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 provides context for when to use the tool: for checking Estonian text for AI-generated capitalization errors per EKI's Reeglid. It mentions input character limit (100,000) and that the tool is a heuristic, implying it's for quick checks. It also mentions that compound, punctuation, and hyphenation checks are separate tools, giving guidance on alternatives. However, it doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or provide a clear 'use case' statement.

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