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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavior, but it only restates search modes already present in the schema. It does not explain output format, result limits, or any side effects, leaving the agent under-informed.

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 short and front-loaded, but the second sentence is largely redundant with the first. It's efficient overall, with only minor waste.

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 search tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is under-specified. It doesn't explain what results look like, pagination, or how it differs from sibling search tools, making it's completeness below acceptable.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description loosely maps to the 'field' parameter but adds no new semantics beyond what the schema already provides.

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 identifies the tool as a dictionary search supporting prefix, fuzzy, and definition-content matching, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from exact-lookup tools like lookup_word by emphasizing broad matching, though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives.

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?

The description implies usage for prefix, fuzzy, or definition-content searches, but provides no explicit when-to-use/not-to-use guidance or alternatives. It's minimally adequate for scoping the tool's purpose.

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