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

Annotations already establish readOnly, idempotent, openWorld, and non-destructive behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds substantial value beyond that by disclosing the specific content and data sources returned (complexity-bound kinds, citations, dictionary and repository entries, language coverage), which tells the agent what to expect from a call.

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 core payload (what is returned) is front-loaded, and the alias note comes last. It is dense — essentially one long enumerated sentence — but nearly every clause lists a distinct return source and 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?

With no output schema, the description carries the burden of describing the return contents, and it does so exhaustively across complexity bounds, citations, dictionary entries, articles, problem pages, and language solutions. For a one-parameter lookup tool this is complete.

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% for the single name parameter, so the baseline is 3. The description does add that short names and aliases are accepted ('Dijkstra', 'KMP', 'union-find'), which slightly extends the schema's example list, but offers no format or resolution rules beyond that.

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-like operation (look up one named algorithm/data structure/technique in full) and enumerates exactly what is returned, from complexity bounds to NIST DADS, cp-algorithms, Skiena, and Rosetta Code. It is very clear what the tool does, though it does not explicitly name sibling tools like algorithm_find or algorithm_compare to sharpen the boundary.

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 says it accepts short names and aliases, which helps with invocation, but gives no when-to-use vs when-not guidance and never points to alternatives such as algorithm_find, algorithm_compare, or algorithm_implementations. The agent must infer the routing from the tool name alone.

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