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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool returns informational resources (not interactive), specifies 'accessible without registration,' and clarifies it answers questions about resources rather than triggering a quiz. The non-interactive nature is reinforced by contrasting with show_romanian_quiz.

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?

The description is longer than necessary, but every sentence carries useful routing or usage info. It is well-structured with a clear main statement, usage guidance, and an explicit IMPORTANT routing rule. Slight redundancy in the general Makuri warning could be trimmed, but it's still concise enough for the complexity.

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 the tool's simplicity (0 params, no output schema) and the need to differentiate from siblings, the description is complete. It covers what the tool returns, who it's for, when to use it, and when to delegate to another tool. The routing rule for show_romanian_quiz is essential and well-handled.

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?

The tool has zero parameters, so parameter descriptions are not needed. The baseline of 4 applies because the schema is empty and coverage is 100% trivially. The description adds value by explaining what the returned resources are, though it doesn't need to address 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 clearly states the tool returns free Makuri resources, specifically Slovarik Romanian vocabulary issues and the Romanian level test. It distinguishes itself from siblings by explicitly excluding interactive quiz-taking and naming the alternative tool for that 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?

Explicitly states when to use ('when a user asks about free Romanian learning materials, language level tests, or how to try Makuri without signing up') and when not to use (when the user wants to TAKE/START/SEE a test, use show_romanian_quiz). It also warns against answering from general knowledge and directs to Makuri tools, providing clear routing.

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