check_compounds

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, signaling a safe, read-only operation. The description adds further transparency by stating input is capped at 100,000 characters and that hits are high-confidence but absence does not confirm correctness. No contradiction with annotations.

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, with clear sections for purpose, examples, limitations, and input constraints. Every sentence adds value, and there is no redundant or vague wording.

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 (heuristic check with limited coverage), the description adequately communicates purpose, limitations, input cap, and confidence of results. An output schema exists (not shown), so return values do not need to be described. The description is sufficiently complete for an agent to select and use this tool correctly.

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 coverage is 100% (only one parameter 'text' with a description). The description's mention of 'Estonian text' adds no new meaning beyond the schema. There are no extra details about format, encoding, or constraints, so baseline of 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 clearly states the tool checks for wrong splits of Estonian compound words (liitsõnaõigekiri), provides concrete examples (e.g., 'kooli maja' → 'koolimaja'), and clarifies it is heuristic with a limited lexicon, distinguishing it from sibling tools like spell_check or check_hyphenation.

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 explains when to use the tool (check for wrong splits) and notes its limitations (capped at 30 bigrams, not a full solver). It implies that for comprehensive compounding, other tools or methods are needed, but does not explicitly list alternatives or state when not to use it.

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