Rewrite text for a target audience

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

Annotations (readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false) indicate the tool is safe and side-effect-free. The description adds behavioral context by explaining the output is meant to be used as a system prompt for an LLM, which goes beyond the 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 consists of two concise sentences: the first defines the purpose and lists style options, the second explains usage and when to apply. No unnecessary words, fully front-loaded.

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?

Despite lacking an output schema, the description tells the agent exactly what to do with the result (use as system prompt). With only two parameters and simple return type, this is complete for an agent to select and invoke 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 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters (text and style). The description lists the allowed style values, but these are already in the enum. No additional semantic value is added beyond what the schema provides.

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's purpose: 'Get rewrite instructions for adapting text to a specific audience style.' It lists the available styles and distinguishes from sibling tools like 'interpret' and 'normalize' by focusing on style adaptation.

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 explicitly tells when to use ('Use when communication needs tone adjustment') and how to use the output ('Pass the result to an LLM with the rewrite_instructions as the system prompt'). It does not mention alternatives or when not to use, but the guidance is clear enough.

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