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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the description adds real nuance: 'live' cards (implying archived or deleted cards are excluded) and the existence of curated collections plus the reading-time 'Words not in a collection' bucket. It does not discuss limit truncation behavior, but the safety and content profile is well covered.

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-loads the core behavior in the first clause, then qualifies with the includeExamples case. Two sentences with little waste, though the second sentence is dense and could be split for scannability.

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?

Output schema and annotations carry the return shape and safety profile, so the description needn't explain them. But the required targetLang parameter is undocumented in both the schema and the description, and nothing is said about pagination/truncation when limit is set, leaving a visible gap for a 5-param read tool.

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 80% and the schema already documents collectionUuid/collectionTitle precedence and includeExamples/limit. The description restates the selector pair and adds only the purpose of includeExamples ('editing examples starts from'); it says nothing about the required targetLang or about what limit does to results.

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 (returns live cards from one Lingard vocabulary collection) and specifies the two selector modes plus the special 'Words not in a collection' bucket. This clearly separates it from siblings like lingard_get_collection_gaps or lingard_add_words_to_collection, which read gaps or mutate membership.

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?

Implies usage by describing the selectors and by noting includeExamples:true is what 'editing examples starts from', which hints at the follow-on workflow. However, it never says when to prefer this over lingard_get_collection_gaps or other read siblings, and offers no exclusions.

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