check_punctuation

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

Beyond annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint), the description adds detailed behavioral context: heuristic nature, single-rule coverage, list of included/excluded conjunctions, and input character limit. This fully informs the agent of the tool's capabilities and constraints.

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 well-structured: a succinct headline, followed by a list of conjunctions and limitations. Every sentence adds value, and the information is front-loaded. No redundant text.

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 specific focus and the presence of an output schema, the description is complete. It covers the rule, exceptions, limitations, and input restrictions, providing sufficient context for correct use.

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 extra context about the conjunctions and exclusions, enhancing understanding beyond the schema. A score of 4 reflects this added value.

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: 'Heuristic Estonian punctuation check — comma-before-clause rule.' It specifies the exact rule and lists the conjunctions covered, distinguishing it from sibling linguistic tools that handle morphology, spelling, etc.

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 clear context on when to use the tool (for checking Estonian comma-before-clause rule) and what is excluded (other punctuation rules, specific conjunctions). It mentions phase-1 limitations and input cap. However, it doesn't explicitly state when not to use or suggest alternative sibling tools for other punctuation tasks, though none exist among siblings.

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