check_style

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

The description thoroughly explains each metric's behavior (lemma-aware repetition, passive voice ratio with threshold, sentence length stats, hedging word list) and discloses phase-1 limitations (heuristic only, no cliché detection, input cap). Annotations confirm readOnly and idempotent, and the description adds valuable context beyond 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 well-structured: a clear purpose, followed by a bullet list of metrics with precise behavioral details, then limitations. Every sentence adds value, and it is appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

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 simple input schema (single required parameter) and the existence of an output schema, the description covers everything needed: metric definitions, behavioral details, limitations, and input constraints. It is fully complete for an AI agent to use 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?

Only one parameter 'text' with schema coverage 100%. The description adds value by specifying the text must be Estonian and capped at 100k characters, and explains what metrics will be computed, enhancing understanding beyond the schema description.

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 provides 'Heuristic Estonian style metrics for newsletter / ad / email copy' and lists four specific metrics (repetition, passive_voice, sentence_length, hedging). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like spell_check or pos_tag by focusing on style analysis.

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 says it is for 'newsletter / ad / email copy' and lists the metrics, implying when to use it. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives, though sibling tools provide context for differentiation.

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