spell_check

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

Discloses that the tool accepts any morphologically well-formed word including invented compounds, which is a key behavioral trait not covered by annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint). No contradiction with 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?

Description is concise, front-loaded with purpose, then output format, input limit, and critical caveat, with no wasted words.

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 annotations (readOnly, idempotent) and output schema existence, the description fully explains output format, input constraints, and caveats, and references an appropriate sibling tool for further verification.

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 covers both parameters with basic descriptions; the tool description adds value by specifying the character limit and the effect of the suggestions parameter on output, providing context beyond the schema.

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?

Description clearly states it checks Estonian spelling per word with optional suggestions, and distinguishes from sibling tools like check_compound_familiarity by noting its limitations for coined 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?

Explicitly explains when to use (Estonian spell-check) and when not to rely solely (for unusual compounds) by directing to check_compound_familiarity, and notes the 100,000 character input limit.

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