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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), but the description adds substantial behavioral context: it is a rule-based first pass, does not split compounds, does not reverse sandhi, and crucially warns that possible_stems are unattested rule output with no segment_id and may not be real Pāli words.

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?

Well-organized with bolded sections (Use this tool when / Recommended workflow / Limitations) and front-loaded purpose. Slightly verbose, as the 'possible_stems are not attested' caveat is effectively stated twice (in Limitations and again in the final warning), which costs a point.

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?

Given an output schema exists, the description is more than complete: it explains the semantics and reliability of possible_stems that an agent cannot safely infer from the schema alone. Nothing needed to call or interpret the tool correctly is missing.

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?

Only one parameter and schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents the 'word' input with examples. The description reinforces the input type with the same examples but adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, 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 ('strip inflectional suffixes') and resource ('inflected Pāli word') with an explicit goal ('find the root form / basic stem'). It clearly distinguishes itself from get_word_definition by framing itself as the fallback that produces candidate stems for that 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?

Provides an explicit 'Use this tool when' block with two triggering conditions and a named alternative (get_word_definition). The 'Recommended workflow' section spells out the exact call sequence parse_pali_word -> get_word_definition over possible_stems, 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.