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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/openWorld/non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real context beyond that: dual return format (Markdown plus structuredContent), the result.category discriminant ('nominal' | 'verbal' | 'not_found') to switch on before reading the body, and the CC BY-SA source provenance.

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?

Front-loads the action and scope, then the usage rule, then return details; every clause carries information. Slightly dense with stacked parentheticals, but no filler sentences.

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, the description needn't restate returns, yet it still points the agent to the result.category discriminant. Invocation, usage constraints, and return handling are all covered for a 2-param read-only 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% and both parameters are already documented in the schema. The description restates the entry_id + word_class pairing as an 'inflection handle' from a search result, which frames the concept but adds little beyond the schema's own descriptions.

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 (Fetch) and resource (declension/conjugation inflection tables) for a lemma identified via an entry_id + word_class handle. It also bounds scope explicitly (nominals vs verbs, positive AND negative), making it clearly distinct from the romanize/deromanize/search 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?

Gives an explicit when/when-not rule: use 'only when a search ran without inline forms or left a match un-expanded,' because 'a default search already returns each match's table inline.' It names the alternative (search) and the condition that routes to it.

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