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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose something genuinely useful beyond the name: the result is a complete table and every form carries an anchor URL into the eldertongue.com entry page. It omits error behavior for a headword with no paradigm (e.g. an already-inflected form passed by mistake) and says nothing about whether macrons/diacritics must match.

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?

Two sentences, no filler: the capability is front-loaded and the output detail follows. Every clause carries information about either what is returned or what the return values contain.

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?

This is a simple single-parameter lookup with no output schema, and the description adequately covers both the input expectation (headword) and the shape of the result (full paradigm table with per-form anchors). Only the failure mode for an unrecognized headword is left unaddressed.

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 the single parameter is documented with examples (cyning, gōd, bindan), so the baseline is 3. The description reinforces that the argument is a "headword" rather than an arbitrary inflected form, which is a small but real addition over the schema text.

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?

"Return the full declension (nouns/adjectives) or conjugation (verbs) table for an Old English headword" gives a concrete verb (return a table), a specific resource (inflectional paradigm), and names the word classes covered. It distinguishes itself in kind from lookup_headword or identify_form, though it never names those siblings explicitly.

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 explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and none of the four siblings are referenced. The agent must infer from the word "full ... table" that this is for paradigms rather than definitions (lookup_headword) or reverse analysis of an inflected form (identify_form).

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