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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered elsewhere. The description adds no behavioral context beyond that: nothing about result pagination, what happens on zero matches, or whether partial matches are prefix or substring. With annotations carrying the load, this is a thin but non-contradictory addition.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler, and the resource identification is placed first. It is efficient, though its brevity is part of the reason the other dimensions are under-served.

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?

For a paginated search tool with no output schema and two of three parameters undocumented, the description should at least explain paging and the shape of results. It leaves both unaddressed, so an agent must guess how to walk pages or what a result entry looks like.

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 only 33%: q is documented in the schema, while page and per_page have no descriptions at all. The description mentions only the search word and says nothing about paging or the 100-item cap on per_page, so it fails to compensate for the coverage gap on the two undocumented parameters.

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 states a specific verb and resource: search the Indonesian Dictionary (KBBI) by word, with the acronym spelled out, so an agent knows exactly which corpus is queried. It does not differentiate from the close siblings kbbi_word_get and kbbi_random, so an agent cannot tell from the description alone which of the three to pick for an exact-lookup case.

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?

There is no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and no mention of the alternatives (kbbi_word_get for a precise entry, kbbi_random for discovery). The partial-match behavior in the schema hints at a use case, but the description itself offers no routing logic.

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