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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so safety and determinism are covered. The description adds the useful detail that each example is a dialogue of one or more lines, but says nothing about how many examples come back, ordering, or whether the corpus is fixed.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with what is returned and immediately followed by the shape of each item. No filler, no restatement of the tool name beyond what is needed to identify the target word.

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 an output schema present and rich annotations, the description only needs to frame the content, which it does by naming the target word, the language and the item structure. Minor gaps (expected result count, whether the word is fixed) keep it short of full completeness for a tool with no required parameters.

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?

There is a single optional parameter whose schema description already fully explains the random behavior (100% coverage), so the schema carries the semantics. The description does not mention the random option or the default all-examples behavior, so it adds nothing beyond structured data here.

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 resource — example sentences using the word 'tachtien', in Dutch — and describes their shape (short dialogues of one or more lines). It does not explicitly contrast itself with siblings like define, mentions or tachtienify, so an agent must infer that this tool returns illustrative usage rather than definitions or occurrence lists.

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: an agent can guess this is for seeing the word in context, but there is no explicit when-to-use statement, no exclusions, and no named alternative such as define (for meaning) or mentions (for occurrences). The sibling set makes such routing guidance genuinely valuable and it is absent.

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