check_object_case

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

The description goes beyond annotations by detailing heuristic nature, phase-1 limitations, lack of syntactic parser, skipping of proper nouns, and 100,000 character input cap. No contradiction with annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint).

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?

Well-structured with bullet points explaining two rules and a limitations section. Every sentence adds value; front-loaded with purpose.

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 complexity (heuristic rules), existing annotations, and presence of output schema, the description is complete. It covers rules, limitations, and input constraints without needing to detail 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?

Schema coverage is 100% with a clear parameter description. The tool description adds context about Estonian text but does not provide additional semantics beyond what the schema already states.

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 is a 'Heuristic Estonian object-case-government check' that catches direct object case errors after negation or partitive-governing verbs. This specific verb+resource+scope distinguishes it from siblings like spell_check or check_compounds.

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 limitations (no syntactic parser, false positives possible) and advises to 'Treat hits as "worth a second look", not authoritative'. It implies use for Estonian text but does not explicitly state when not to use it or list alternatives.

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