check_hyphenation

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, and the description adds rich behavioral detail: no-orphan-edge rule, phase-1 limitation (pure syllable-boundary based), compound-boundary preference not applied, input constraints (single word, no whitespace, 200 chars). 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?

The description is concise with no fluff: a clear opening, effective sibling comparison, behavioral rules, and limitations. Every sentence is necessary and well-organized.

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 low complexity (1 required param), presence of output schema, and thorough coverage of input constraints, behavioral traits, and sibling differentiation, the description is complete for an AI agent to correctly invoke the tool.

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 sole parameter 'word' is fully described in the schema (100% coverage). The description adds value by specifying the 200-character cap, which is not in the schema, and reinforces the Estonian language and no-whitespace constraint.

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 returns safe line-break positions for an Estonian word, using the specific verb 'return' and resource 'line-break positions'. It distinguishes itself from the sibling 'syllabify' by noting the phonological vs. typesetting 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 explicitly compares with 'syllabify' and explains when to use this tool (for character offsets for typesetting) vs. the other tool (phonological syllable boundaries). It provides constraints like no-orphan-edge rule and limitations, but does not exhaustively list all alternatives.

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