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

Annotations already declare read-only, open-world, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful context beyond the annotations: the output is a plain-text extract with title and extract fields, the default language is en, and titles are case-sensitive. It does not add deeper behavioral details like error handling or rate limits, so it is solid but not rich.

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 with no wasted words; the main purpose is front-loaded, followed by the key behavioral note about case sensitivity. Every sentence 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?

Given the simple two-parameter schema, rich annotations, and the existence of an output schema, the description is nearly complete. It covers the default language and case sensitivity, but does not route the agent away from sibling tools, leaving a small contextual gap.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains that 'word' is the target and that titles are case-sensitive, and that 'lang' specifies the language subdomain with a default of 'en'. It does not clarify the expected format of 'lang' beyond the example, so it only partially fills the gap.

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 and resource: 'Fetch a plain-text summary extract of a Wiktionary entry (title, extract) for a word on the specified language subdomain (default en).' This is clear and specific, but it does not explicitly name or differentiate from siblings such as definition, etymology, or pronunciations, so it falls just short of a 5.

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 the default language ('default en') but gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like definition, etymology, or pronunciations, nor any when-not conditions. Usage context is implied at best.

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