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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and a closed-world scope, so the safety profile is covered. The description goes beyond them by disclosing the historical character of the records (1879 Twi orthography, 1916 translation), which matters for how results should be quoted or caveated. It does not discuss match breadth, pagination behavior, or what happens on zero results, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

It is three tight sentences ordered by importance: when to use it, what a result contains, when not to use it. The use-case list is short and each exclusion is substantive, so no sentence is padding.

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?

With an output schema present, return-value explanation is optional, and the description still adds the one thing the schema cannot convey: the archival date and orthography of the results. All three parameters are fully covered by the schema, and the exclusion list closes the main ambiguity (translation vs. retrieval), so nothing an agent needs is missing.

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 all three parameters (about, limit, page) are already documented in the schema, and the baseline of 3 applies. The description's 'about a topic or containing a word' restates the schema's own wording without adding syntax, matching behavior (substring vs. semantic), or case handling.

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 resource (Akan/Twi proverbs from Ghana) and the exact retrieval operation: finding a proverb by topic or by a word it contains. It also states the provenance of each result (Twi as printed in 1879, English translation of 1916), which tells an agent precisely what kind of object it is fetching and how it differs from a daily-proverb or topic-listing tool.

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 gives concrete positive use cases (speech, toast, lesson, writing, understanding the tradition) and an explicit exclusion list: not for translating new sentences, not for explaining local/family meanings, not for non-Akan proverbs. That when/when-not pairing leaves little for the agent to infer.

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