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

Annotations declare readOnly/idempotent, and the description adds value beyond them: the return contract (Markdown plus structuredContent {"result": <paradigm>}), the discriminator to switch on (result.category with its four values), and the important provenance caveat that tables are engine-generated rather than attested.

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 tight sentences: purpose and handle sourcing first, then the gating condition, then the return contract. Dense but every clause carries information; the em-dash asides are mildly heavy but not wasteful.

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 two-param read tool with full schema coverage and an output schema, the description supplies exactly the missing pieces: the precondition for calling it, the structuredContent shape, and the category switch. Nothing an agent needs to invoke and interpret it is absent.

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 the baseline is 3, but the description adds meaning by framing the two parameters jointly as a 'search result's inflection handle' and implying both must come from the same search match. Field-level syntax (numeric id, class vocabulary) is left to the schema.

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: fetch the declension/conjugation paradigm for a word keyed by a search result's inflection handle (entry_id + word_class). It is clearly distinct from interslavic_search, which produces those handles, and from the transliterate/romanize 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?

Explicitly constrains usage: 'Use this only when a search ran without inline forms or left a match un-expanded — a default search already returns each match's table inline.' This tells the agent both when to call it and when the sibling search already covers the need.

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