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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds useful behavior about the no-filter fallback returning locales with counts, but it does not discuss pagination or other operational details beyond what the schema provides.

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?

Two tightly written sentences with the resource and filtering modes front-loaded. No sentence is wasted and the fallback behavior is stated clearly.

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?

Given 100% schema coverage, an output schema, and read-only annotations, the description covers the key invocation modes and the no-filter fallback. Pagination and word-search semantics are left to the schema, which is acceptable here.

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 parameters like limit, locale, offset, and search are already documented. The description reinforces how locale and search shape results and what happens when both are omitted, but it does not add materially 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?

States a specific verb and resource: lists workspace pronunciation dictionary entries with IPA and category. It clearly covers locale-scoped and search-based modes, though it does not explicitly name sibling tools such as preview_pronunciation or suggest_pronunciations.

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?

Explains the locale and search modes and the neither-filter fallback to a locale list with counts. It gives invocation context but does not explicitly say when to choose this tool over related siblings like preview_pronunciation or suggest_pronunciations.

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