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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/openWorld/destructive=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavioral value: the dual Markdown + structuredContent return and the instruction to switch on result.category ('nominal' | 'verbal' | 'not_found') before reading the body, plus the CC BY-SA attribution. Not a full 5 since the return shape is also declared in outputSchema.

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?

Strongly front-loaded: purpose, then usage constraint, then return/reading guidance. Every sentence carries weight, though the closing attribution adds a touch of length without aiding invocation.

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 annotations covering safety, an outputSchema covering the return shape, and 100% schema coverage on params, the description supplies everything else an agent needs: when to use it and how to interpret result.category. Nothing material 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so both parameters are already documented in the schema. The description reinforces that entry_id + word_class come from a search result's inflection handle but adds no syntax, format, or edge-case detail beyond the schema — 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?

The description opens with a specific verb+resource ('Fetch the full declension... or conjugation... table for a lemma') and scopes it to the handle (entry_id + word_class). It clearly distinguishes the nominal vs verbal case, so an agent knows exactly what it retrieves.

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?

It explicitly states the condition to use it ('only when a search ran without inline forms or left a match un-expanded') and the condition not to ('a default search already returns each match's table inline'). This directly routes the agent relative to the latin_search sibling.

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