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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, closed-world and non-destructive behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description usefully frames the tool as a key-producing precursor rather than an answer tool, but says nothing about ambiguity handling, no-match behavior, or normalization across EN/ES.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the core transformation and followed by the scoping contrast. Every sentence earns its place with no filler.

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 an output schema present and one fully documented parameter, the description needn't explain return values, and it correctly positions the tool in the workflow. Only the failure/ambiguity path is unaddressed, which is a minor gap for a resolver.

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?

Single parameter with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already explains the accepted phrase (including the EN/ES note and length bounds). The description restates the same idea ('place and/or practice phrase') without adding format or matching semantics, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 ('turns a place and/or practice phrase into the keys') and explicitly contrasts itself with the siblings ('the other tools answer the questions'). An agent can tell this is a lookup/resolution step, not an analysis tool.

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?

'Only for turning words into keys; the other tools answer the questions' clearly scopes when to use it versus the seven analytical siblings, and 'keys every other tool takes' implies it is a precursor step. It stops short of stating an explicit sequencing rule or what to do when resolution fails.

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