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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and openWorld, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavior beyond that: the return format (Markdown plus structuredContent), the need to switch on result.category ('nominal' | 'verbal' | 'not_found') before reading the body, and the CC BY-SA 4.0 source. Slight redundancy with the declared outputSchema keeps it from a 5.

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 scope, and every sentence carries information (scope, output shape, category switch, license). The nested parentheticals make it dense but not wasteful; it could be marginally tighter.

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?

Given an output schema exists, the description need not explain returns, yet it usefully highlights the category discriminator and the Markdown/structuredContent duality. With both params documented and safety covered by annotations, an agent has everything needed to call it correctly.

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 coverage is 100% and both parameters are well documented in the schema, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaning by framing entry_id + word_class as an 'inflection handle' sourced from a search result, giving provenance for the values that the schema alone does not fully convey.

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') plus the exact resource (full declension for nominals, conjugation for verbs, positive and negative) for a lemma identified by a search result's inflection handle. It also implicitly distinguishes itself from latgalian_search by noting the search's inline-form behavior, so an agent can tell the two apart.

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?

Explicitly scopes when to use it ('only when a search ran without inline forms or left a match un-expanded') and when not to (a default search already returns each match's table inline). This is a clear when/when-not statement rather than an implied usage.

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