check_translationese

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/closed-world, and the description adds substantial context beyond them: the exact rule inventory, which two rules are only style hints, which constructs are deliberately NOT checked (third-person possessives, negated verbs, questions), and a false-positive guard that accepted Estonian is never flagged. That is unusually rich behavioral disclosure for a checker.

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?

Purpose and usage are front-loaded in the first two sentences, then the rule list. The rule block is long but each item carries distinct information (rule name plus example), so it earns its space; it is dense rather than padded.

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?

With an output schema present, the description needn't explain return values, and it covers scope, rules, exclusions, and sibling routing. Minor gaps remain: no statement about behavior on non-Estonian or mixed input, and no mention of input size limits.

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 and schema coverage is 100%, so the schema already fully documents `text`. The description's guidance (Estonian you wrote or translated) largely duplicates the schema description and adds no syntax, size, or format constraints for the input.

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 first sentence names a specific verb (flag), a specific target (English structure in Estonian), and frames it as translationese detection. It also names the sibling it defers to for a related-but-different concern (check_officialese handles letter formulas), so an agent can separate it from check_style and check_officialese without opening schemas.

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?

"Run it on Estonian you wrote or translated" gives a clear usage condition, and the closing line explicitly routes letter formulas to check_officialese. It lacks a full when-not-to-use statement (e.g. versus check_style or check_legalese for register/rhetoric), so the alternative map is clear but not exhaustive.

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