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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and readOnlyHint=false. The description adds useful context about omitted fields remaining unchanged and clear erasing selected fields, plus the IPA storage constraint. It does not cover permissions or broader side effects, so a 4.

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 tight sentences with no waste. The add/edit distinction is front-loaded, followed by the important edit and clear semantics.

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 rich annotations, full schema coverage, and an output schema, the description supplies the core behavior an agent needs. It omits explicit add-time required fields and the source of entry_id, though those are covered by the schema.

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 every parameter thoroughly. The description restates key fields and adds the IPA-choice constraint, but does not provide much 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: add or edit a dictionary entry, with entry_id selecting edit mode. This clearly distinguishes the tool from siblings like delete_dictionary_entry and list_dictionary_entries.

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 add-vs-edit decision via entry_id and clarifies edit semantics: omitted fields stay unchanged and clear erases fields. It does not name sibling alternatives or explicitly say when not to use it, so not a 5.

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