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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, openWorld), so the bar is lower. The description adds genuinely new operational context: results are cached server-side and the analysis comes from an external Perseids Morpheus service. It also declares the return shape (Markdown + structuredContent). No contradiction with annotations.

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-loaded with the core action and the output contents, followed by the routing hint. Every sentence carries information (output shape, caching, service source), though the return-format and provenance sentences could be compressed.

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 outputSchema present, the description need not explain return values, and it still notes Markdown + structuredContent. Annotations, a fully documented single param, and the external-service note leave little an agent needs missing; only the unaddressed latin_get_inflections alternative keeps it from being fully complete.

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 the single 'word' parameter is already well documented in the schema (examples, macron note, length bounds). The description only restates 'one inflected Latin form' and adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 names a specific verb+resource (analyze one inflected Latin form) and enumerates the output (lemma(s) plus grammatical reading: person, number, tense, mood, voice, case). It explicitly carves out territory from latin_search. It does not address the latin_get_inflections sibling, which is the most overlapping tool, so sibling differentiation is incomplete.

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 states exactly when this tool is the right pick ('when you want the morphology itself') and names the alternative with the condition that selects it ('for the dictionary entry, latin_search already resolves inflected queries on its own'). This is explicit when-to-use plus a named alternative.

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