check_message

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

Goes well beyond the readOnlyHint/openWorldHint annotations by disclosing the verdict vocabulary, that the safety classifier may be skipped under time pressure, that the original text is never echoed back, and that timing is measured against the deadline. These are exactly the behavioral facts an agent needs before calling.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action and the check ordering, and the second sentence covers the return contract compactly. Slightly dense but no filler sentences.

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?

Output schema exists, so describing return values is a bonus rather than a requirement, and the deadline behavior is the main remaining gap. For a 2-parameter read-only checker the description is nearly sufficient to call 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It indirectly explains deadline_ms via 'if time allows' and 'timing against the deadline', but never states units, the 100ms default, or what happens when the deadline is exceeded, so compensation is only partial.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('check a text') and enumerates the three dimensions checked: format, personal data, safety. The purpose is immediately clear, though there is no naming of the sibling tools since they are governance/decision tools rather than other text checkers.

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?

Gives a clear trigger ('before acting on it') and priority guidance: personal data is checked always, safety only if time allows. It doesn't name an alternative tool or state when-not to use this, which keeps it below a 5.

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