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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that the result comes from DWDS.de and names its fields, but says nothing about rate limits, error behavior for unknown words, or whether the lookup is cached — modest added value beyond the annotations.

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?

One sentence plus a compact example; the resource and returned fields are front-loaded. No filler, though the example call largely repeats what the input schema already shows.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and annotations carry the safety profile. The definition is adequate for a single-parameter lookup, with the only real gap being when to prefer the sibling dwds_frequency.

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?

With a single parameter at 100% schema coverage, the schema already documents 'query' as a German word and supplies examples. The description's inline example duplicates the schema's examples rather than adding new semantics such as casing, umlaut handling, or article-stripping rules.

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 states a specific verb and resource — producing a dictionary entry summary for a German word from DWDS.de — and enumerates the returned fields (part of speech, base lemma, entry link). It does not differentiate against the sibling dwds_frequency, which is the closest alternative, so an agent must infer the split.

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?

Usage is only implied: the example snippet({ query: "Haus" }) shows the call shape but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no mention of when dwds_frequency is the better choice, and no note on failure for non-German or unknown words.

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