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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds context that the search is over Wiktionary titles and fulltext, which is useful but does not disclose additional behavioral traits (e.g., pagination, rate limits). It adds some value beyond 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?

The description is a single sentence with no wasted words. It is front-loaded and conveys the core functionality efficiently. However, it could be slightly more verbose to improve completeness.

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?

Given the tool has 3 parameters and an output schema, the description is too minimal. It does not explain the nature of results, any required prerequisites, or how to interpret inputs. The agent may struggle to use the tool correctly without additional context.

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 only 33% (only 'limit' described). The description does not clarify the meaning of 'query' or 'lang' beyond what the schema provides. With low coverage, the description fails to compensate, leaving parameter semantics unclear.

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 tool description clearly specifies the verb (search), resource (Wiktionary), and scope (title + fulltext). This differentiates it from sibling tools like 'definition', 'etymology', or 'pronunciations', which target specific aspects of Wiktionary content.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling tools (e.g., 'deep_research', 'bet_research'), the agent receives no context for selection. No exclusions or usage scenarios are mentioned.

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