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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld, and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine context beyond that: the return medium (Markdown plus structuredContent), the discriminator to switch on (result.category of nominal/verbal/not_found) before reading the body, and the CC BY-SA 4.0 source of the content.

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 action, then the usage restriction, then the return contract; every sentence carries information. The trailing attribution line is boilerplate but justifiable for a CC BY-SA source, costing little.

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 need not re-explain return values, yet it supplies the category discriminator and the inline-vs-explicit routing rule. Annotations, schema, and description together leave no gap for correct invocation of this two-parameter read 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 property descriptions already state that the values come from a search result's inflection handle, with examples. The description restates the same entry_id + word_class pairing without adding format, edge-case, or derivation detail beyond the schema, so the baseline of 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 and resource: fetch the full declension (nominals) or conjugation (verbs) table for a given lemma. It also scopes the input domain to a lemma identified by a search result's inflection handle (entry_id + word_class), which cleanly separates it from slavonic_search and the transliteration 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-not: '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.' That names the alternative behavior (inline tables from slavonic_search) and the exact condition that selects this tool.

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