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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does substantial work: it explains that found:false means the site lacks an entry (not that the term is nonexistent), forbids inventing a definition, and warns that sentence-length input fails to match. It does not state what a successful entry looks like beyond "one line each".

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?

Front-loaded with purpose, then the argument rules, then the all-important found:false caveat at the end where it belongs. Some filler in the term list ("and what separates pool from snooker from carom") inflates the first sentence without adding selection value.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description covers the key return-value semantics (found:false, one line per entry) plus both parameter behaviors. Complete enough to call correctly, with only the exact entry shape left unspecified.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning: input must be a single word or short phrase, is case-insensitive, and may be omitted to retrieve all entries. The kind enum is left entirely to the schema, which is acceptable given its self-documenting description.

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?

Opens with a specific question the tool answers ("What does a pool, billiards or snooker word mean?") and quantifies scope: 36 terms, 27 game names. The resource is unmistakable, though it never differentiates itself by name from siblings pool_player, pool_rules, or pool_search.

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?

Gives concrete invocation guidance: pass the word itself, any case, and "pull the word out first" because a full sentence will not match. Also states that omitting q returns everything. It stops short of saying when to prefer pool_search or pool_rules instead.

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