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

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It usefully reveals the returned content (translations, pronunciation, forms, examples), which is real added value, but says nothing about exact-match vs fuzzy behavior, not-found handling, or how limit affects results.

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 that names the tool's action, data source, and payload with zero filler. Every clause earns its place.

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?

The description compensates partially for the absent output schema by enumerating return fields, but with 3 parameters and only one documented, the behavior of 'limit' and the source-language semantics of 'language' remain unclear to an agent deciding how to call it.

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 only 33%, and the description does not compensate: it lists target translation languages but never explains that 'language' selects the source language of the headword (enum even includes 'nl', which the description omits), nor what 'limit' bounds.

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 (look up) and resource (Luxembourgish dictionary / LOD) and enumerates what comes back: translations, pronunciation, forms, examples. No sibling tool covers dictionary lookup, so the agent can select it unambiguously.

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 named alternative. The enumeration of returned content implies the tool's purpose but never states the condition that should trigger a call.

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