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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds non-annotation context: results are 'bounded summaries' containing only id/word/aliases (not full definitions) and are returned in the vibe coder's own order. It does not mention pagination defaults or total counts, which keeps it short of 5.

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?

Three short sentences, zero filler, and the primary action plus scope is front-loaded before the archived flag and the alternative-tool pointer.

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, the description usefully specifies the returned fields (id, word, aliases) and ordering, and annotations cover safety. It omits any note on paging behavior or what the boundary values mean, which is a minor but real gap for a paginated list 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 description coverage is 100%, with limit, offset, archived, and projectId all documented in the schema, so the baseline is 3. The description's only parameter insight is the archived toggle, which the schema already states ('True to list archived records instead of active ones'); it adds no syntax or default-value meaning beyond that.

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 (List) and resource (a project's dictionary terms), and disambiguates scope by naming the active-vs-archived variants. It also names the exact return shape (id, word, aliases) and routes the agent to `get` with kind dictionary_term for definitions, so an agent can separate it from `get` and from the other list_* siblings.

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?

Explicit routing: pass archived=true to read archived terms, and use `get` with kind dictionary_term for the approved definition. Both the alternative tool and the condition that selects it are named, leaving nothing to inference.

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