Find the infinitive of a conjugated form

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

Given that annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond the annotations: it returns multiple possible infinitives, reports the slots the form occupies, includes coverage caveats for fr/es/de/en, and notes irregular forms are handled across all languages.

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 two sentences with no wasted words. It front-loads the core purpose with 'Reverse lookup', then immediately explains the return behavior and gives a clarifying example. The coverage note at the end is concise and useful, and 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?

For a simple read-only two-parameter lookup with a full schema and an output schema present, the description is complete. It explains what the tool returns, how it handles ambiguity, what coverage to expect, and which languages are supported. Nothing essential is missing for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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 100%, and both parameters already have clear descriptions in the schema ('The conjugated form to look up' and 'Language code'). The description reinforces this but does not add meaningful new parameter-level detail beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 opens with 'Reverse lookup', which names a specific operation and resource: converting a conjugated form into its infinitive(s). It also distinguishes this from the sibling tool 'conjugate' by clearly stating the direction of the lookup, and provides a concrete ambiguous example ('suis' matching both être and suivre), so an agent can confidently tell it apart.

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 makes the usage context explicit: use this when you have a conjugated form and want the infinitive(s). It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion conditions, but the 'reverse lookup' framing plus the sibling name 'conjugate' make the appropriate use case clear enough.

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