reeling_check_spam_score

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

No annotations are provided, and the description usefully discloses that no API key is required and what the tool returns: a safety_score, trigger explanations, sanitized copy, and a verification badge. However, it does not cover side effects, data retention, rate limits, or whether the original content is modified.

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 is two sentences, front-loads the public/no-key access context, then states the core operation and outputs. Every sentence contributes useful information without waste.

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 simple three-parameter public evaluation tool with full schema coverage, the description covers purpose, access requirements, and return values even though no output schema exists. It lacks sibling routing and deeper behavioral details, but is otherwise complete enough to 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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all three parameters. The description mentions the title, body, and platforms, but adds no format, default, or enum information 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 names a specific verb and resource: it evaluates a draft title and post body against a spam/automod shield for listed platforms. This is clear, but it does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools such as reeling_evaluate_content_jev.

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 terms 'Pre-Publish' and 'draft' clearly signal the usage context: checking content before publication. It also notes 'No API key required,' giving access context, but it does not state exclusions or name alternative tools for related evaluations.

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