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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered by structured data. The description adds nothing beyond that; a gap remains around failure behavior for invalid IDs and missing permissions.

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?

Very short, but the first line 'Get wordlist' merely repeats the annotation title before the actual sentence restates it again, so a third of the text is redundant rather than informative.

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 nested-object, single-parameter lookup with no output schema, the description omits what a returned wordlist contains and how project scoping affects the call. Adequate only for a reader who already knows the API.

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?

The description mentions only that lookup is 'by ID', which merely restates the required id field. The nested request object and the projectId parameter, including the important scoping rule for organization versus project keys, are never surfaced in the description; overall schema coverage is reported as 0%, so the description should have compensated and does not.

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: retrieve a single wordlist by ID. It is clear what the tool returns conceptually, but it never distinguishes itself from the sibling wordlist-list or wordlist-get-embedding-status.

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?

No statement of when to use this versus wordlist-list (which presumably lists all wordlists) or wordlist-get-embedding-status. No prerequisites or error conditions are mentioned; the agent must infer the lookup use case from the name alone.

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