greet

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden, and it does not state that the tool is a side-effect-free pure lookup or what the greeting output looks like. For a trivial, non-mutating generator the risk is low, but the omission of any behavioral note keeps it at minimum viable.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; every clause earns its place and the input-to-output relationship is stated immediately.

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?

For a two-parameter tool with 100% schema coverage and an output schema covering return values, the description supplies enough for correct invocation. Only the absence of any usage/behavioral context keeps it short of a 5.

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 100%, including the language enum and its default, so the schema already documents both parameters fully. The description only restates that a name and language are input, adding no format or semantic detail 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?

The description states a specific action and resource: given a name and language, it returns a greeting. That is unambiguous, and the sibling tools (calc, geocode, get-weather, etc.) are in unrelated domains, so no sibling differentiation is required.

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?

It says what inputs are needed but gives no guidance on when to call this versus alternatives, nor any exclusions or prerequisites. With no closely related siblings there is little to disambiguate, but the description offers no usage context at all.

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