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

With no annotations, the description carries the disclosure burden. It transparently reveals that the call costs $0.005 USDC on Base, a non-obvious side effect of invoking the tool. However, it does not describe the result shape, error behavior, or whether text is transmitted/stored.

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?

One sentence, front-loads the purpose, and adds the cost detail without waste. Every word contributes.

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 paid external tool with no output schema, the missing return-value contract is a significant gap. The agent knows what the tool does and what it costs but not what a successful response looks like or how to interpret the moderation result.

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 0% and the schema only provides the title 'Text'. The description adds that the text is checked for profanity/explicit terms, but does not specify expected format, length limits, language, or plain-vs-HTML handling, so it only partially compensates.

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 uses a specific verb ('Check') and resource ('text') and names the exact purpose: detecting profanity/explicit terms. There are no sibling tools to differentiate against, so no differentiation is needed; it is clear and unambiguous.

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 intended use is implied by the purpose: use when text needs profanity/explicit-term moderation. There are no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use conditions or alternatives, but the cost disclosure hints that it should be called with awareness of the charge.

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