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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose one useful trait, the syllabus ordering of results, but says nothing about pagination semantics despite the presence of limit/offset, nor about permissions, result size, or response shape.

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?

A single compact sentence with the core action front-loaded and the disambiguating level note in parentheses. No filler, and the essential constraint is stated first.

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?

For a list tool with no output schema, the description should say what a returned word looks like and how limit/offset control paging. Neither is covered, and default behavior when limit/offset are omitted is undocumented.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for all three parameters. It adds real meaning for 'level' by explaining that 7 means the HSK 7-9 band, which the schema's min/max cannot convey, but 'limit' and 'offset' are left completely unexplained.

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 specific verb and resource ('List dictionary words of one HSK level') and clarifies the level semantics, including that 7 maps to the HSK 7-9 band. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like lookup_word or list_readings, but the resource and filter are unambiguous enough for an agent to select it.

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 statement of when to use this tool versus lookup_word (single-word lookup) or check_text_level. 'In syllabus order' hints at a browsing/study use case, but no context, prerequisites, or exclusions are given.

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