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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, non-idempotent), and the description adds genuinely new behavior: words are embedded asynchronously in the background, progress is tracked via the embedding status endpoint, and policy attachment is required for moderation use. It does not mention rate limits or what the created object returns, but the async-embedding disclosure is substantial added value.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and followed by the important lifecycle facts (background embedding, policy attachment). The leading "Create wordlist" line merely repeats the annotation title and is the one wasted element.

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?

There is no output schema, and the description never says what creation returns (the wordlist id/key) even though the agent needs that handle to poll wordlist-get-embedding-status. The async and policy requirements are covered, but the return-value gap for a create tool leaves it at minimum-viable-plus.

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?

Top-level schema description coverage is reported at 0% and the single `request` parameter is an undocumented nested wrapper, so the description has to carry weight. It does clarify that words are optional and can be supplied later, which maps to the `words` field, but it says nothing about `name`, `key` (including the auto-suffix behavior), or the `projectId` selector semantics.

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 ("Create a wordlist in the organization") and implicitly separates itself from wordlist-words-add by noting words can be added now or later. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives, so it stops short of a 5, but an agent can place it correctly in the wordlist family.

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?

"To use the wordlist in moderation, add it to a policy" gives the downstream prerequisite and "You can add words now or later" implies when this tool suffices versus wordlist-words-add. There is no explicit when-not guidance or named alternative, so usage is implied rather than spelled out.

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