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 covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavior: the result set is bounded by the script's content rather than dictionary size, so output stays short regardless of dictionary size, and that runs apply all entries by default. It says nothing about authorization, locale fallback behavior, or performance characteristics.

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 short sentences with no filler; the core behavior and the size guarantee are front-loaded before the run-related note. Every sentence earns its place.

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 values need not be explained, and both parameters are fully documented in the schema. The safety profile is covered by annotations. Only the missing guidance about when to choose this over pronunciation-preview siblings keeps it from a 5.

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% — both script_text ('as it would be run') and locale ('BCP-47, case-insensitive') are documented in the schema. The description adds no syntax, format, or locale-matching nuance beyond that, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 states a concrete operation — determining which of the workspace's dictionary entries a given script contains and their frequencies — which is a specific verb+resource combination. It implicitly differentiates itself from list_dictionary_entries by noting the result is 'sized by the script, not by the dictionary.' The colloquial verb 'says' is slightly imprecise but the intent is 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?

Usage is only implied: 'A run applies all of them by default' hints at the relationship to run_workflow, and 'sized by the script, not by the dictionary' hints at when to prefer this over list_dictionary_entries. But no sibling tool is named and there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance, e.g. versus suggest_pronunciations or preview_pronunciation.

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