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

Annotations already establish readOnly/idempotent/closed-world, so the description's job is additive — and it delivers by disclosing the `attested` flag per form and the recommendation to prefer attested results. It doesn't cover table size, ordering, or pagination behavior for the 'whole table' mode, which keeps it at 4.

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, front-loaded on what the tool returns, with the preference rule last. Backticked parameter names tie the prose to the schema. Tight and purposeful, though the first sentence is somewhat elliptical.

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 shape needn't be explained, and the description still surfaces the one output field that affects decisions (`attested`). Enum-constrained `lang` and the nested `features` object are covered by the schema, leaving no major 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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description goes further by framing `features` and `like` as the two ways to target a specific form, which contextualizes otherwise dense schema entries. It stops short of restating value vocabularies, which the schema already does.

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+resource ('Inflected forms from the lexicon') and lays out the two retrieval modes (single form via `features`/`like`, or the whole table). It does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling `lookup_word`, so a 4 rather than 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?

It gives one useful usage rule ('prefer attested forms'), which is real guidance. However, it never says when to call this versus `lookup_word` or the other lexicon-adjacent siblings, so the when-to-use decision is only implied.

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