get_word_suggestions

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

Without annotations, the description explains behavior: returns suggestions for a specific keyword if provided, otherwise full library organized by category. No side effects or authorization details are needed for this read-only suggestion tool.

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 concise sentences, no redundant information. The purpose is front-loaded, and the behavior distinction is clearly stated. Every sentence adds value.

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's simplicity (one optional parameter, no output schema), the description is fully adequate. It covers purpose, usage scenario, and behavior variants. No further details are necessary.

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?

The input schema describes the 'keyword' parameter, and the description adds meaningful context: specifying how the tool behaves with and without the parameter. With 100% schema coverage, the description enhances understanding beyond the schema.

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 explicitly states the tool's purpose: 'Get safe replacement suggestions for sensitive/prohibited Chinese words.' It specifies the resource and action, and distinguishes behavior based on keyword presence. Sibling tool 'check_sensitive_words' hints at a different function, reducing confusion.

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 clear usage guidance: 'Use this when users want to fix flagged words in their content.' This implies the tool should be used after detection. While it doesn't explicitly list when not to use it, the sibling tool name offers differentiation.

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