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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavioral context beyond that: ordering is newest-first, coverage spans back to 1925, scope includes regional and international bees, and each result links to the word's page.

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 sentences, both earning their place: the first covers what is returned and in what order, the second covers filtering and the default. No redundancy or filler, and the most important framing (scope + ordering) is front-loaded.

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, return-value detail is not required, and all three optional parameters are covered elsewhere. The description supplies everything an agent needs to call this correctly: default behavior, filter semantics, ordering, and result scope.

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 coverage is 100%, so parameter definitions are already well documented and the baseline would be 3. The description still adds meaning by explaining the interaction of the filters and what happens when none are supplied (defaults to recent national championship winners), which the schema does not state.

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+resource (returns winning words of past spelling bees) and scopes it clearly: newest first, national championship back to 1925 plus national and regional bees worldwide. This is easily distinguished from siblings like look_up_word, practice_words, trending_words, and words_of_the_year, none of which deal with historical competition winners.

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?

Gives clear context for filtering ('by part of a competition's name... or by year') and spells out the no-filter default behavior ('returns the most recent national championship winners'). It doesn't name or defer to a sibling tool, so it stops short of explicit when-not/alternatives guidance.

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