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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false; the description adds meaningful context with "纯本地查表" (pure local table lookup), signaling this is a deterministic dictionary lookup rather than an analysis or generation step, which clarifies its behavior relative to word_analyze. It stops short of noting error behavior for unknown words.

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?

One compact sentence that is front-loaded with the verb/resource and efficiently enumerates the returned facets, ending with the local-lookup qualifier. No filler, though the facet list is a dense comma run.

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 no output schema and only one fully-documented parameter, the description usefully enumerates the return facets (styles, opposite, co-occurring, marker flag), which compensates for the absent return spec. Adequate for an agent to call and interpret correctly.

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% with a single documented 'word' parameter, so the schema carries the semantic load. The description's mention of a 感受词 (feeling word) slightly narrows the domain but adds no format, length, or validation detail 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 (查/lookup) and resource (感受词), then enumerates exactly what is returned: styles it falls in, opposite word, co-occurring words, marker status. This is far more concrete than a bare name restatement, though it does not explicitly differentiate the tool from the sibling word_analyze, which sounds closely related.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this versus the siblings (word_analyze, word_status, word_list). The description explains what the tool returns but never names an alternative or a condition that selects it, leaving routing to inference.

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