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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint/idempotentHint/openWorldHint/destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely non-annotated behavior: the return format (Markdown plus structuredContent), the {'result': <paradigm>} shape, and the instruction to branch on result.category ('nominal' | 'verbal' | 'not_found') before reading the body. It loses a point only because part of the return detail is restated from the declared output schema.

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 purpose, followed by usage constraint, then return handling and license. Every sentence carries information and the ordering is logical; it is slightly dense but not padded.

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 detail return values, yet it usefully flags the category switch and not_found case, covers when to invoke, and includes attribution/licensing. Nothing an agent needs to call this correctly 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%, and the schema already explains both entry_id (Wiktionary page title / Cyrillic lemma from the inflection handle) and word_class (part-of-speech section). The description only restates the parameters as an 'inflection handle (entry_id + word_class)' pairing, adding little beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Fetch the full declension (nominals) or conjugation (verbs) table for a lemma'), and distinguishes the tool from its search siblings by noting that a default search already returns tables inline. An agent can tell exactly what it retrieves and when it differs from slavonic_search without opening either schema.

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-to-use ('only when a search ran without inline forms or left a match un-expanded') and a when-not ('a default search already returns each match's table inline'). It also states the prerequisite source of the inputs (a search result's inflection handle), so the agent knows this is a second-step tool, not a first entry point.

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