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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered and the description only needs to add result-shape context. It does usefully disclose that a single word can return multiple entries/meanings, but says nothing about not-found behavior, case sensitivity, or language/scope of the dictionary.

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?

One front-loaded sentence with the matching constraint placed before the parenthetical caveat. No filler, no redundancy, and the multi-entry warning is attached to the clause it modifies.

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 one-parameter read-only lookup with rich annotations and no output schema, this is nearly sufficient; the multi-entry disclosure is the key thing an agent needs. Minor remaining gap is the absence of not-found/case-sensitivity behavior, which matters for an exact-match lookup.

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?

There is a single parameter at 100% schema coverage, and the schema already documents it as an exact word with the example "rumah". The description's "exact word" wording merely restates the schema rather than adding matching rules such as case or diacritic handling, so baseline 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?

The description gives a specific verb and resource ("Get all KBBI entries") and pins the matching mode to "exact word match", which implicitly separates it from the fuzzy sibling kbbi_search. It stops short of naming kbbi_search or kbbi_random explicitly, so the differentiation is inferred rather than stated.

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?

Usage is only implied: the phrase "exact word match" hints that partial/prefix lookups belong to kbbi_search, and the parenthetical about multiple meanings warns of multi-result returns. It never states when not to use this tool or points to an alternative by name, so the agent must infer the routing.

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