list_words_by_level

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does contribute one behavioral fact: results come back in syllabus order. However, it is silent on pagination behavior, default limit, and whether the list is exhaustive or capped at 100.

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?

One well-formed sentence with the resource and level semantics front-loaded and zero filler; every clause adds information.

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?

There is no output schema and no annotations, yet the description doesn't say what a returned word entry looks like or how limit/offset interact. The core purpose and ordering are covered, but an agent still has gaps for a 3-parameter list tool.

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 0%, so the schema only gives raw integer bounds with no meaning. The description rescues the most important parameter by defining the level range and the special 7 = HSK 7-9 semantic, but limit and offset (pagination, cap of 100) are left entirely unexplained.

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 (List) plus resource (dictionary words) and scopes it to a single HSK level, so it is distinguishable from lookup_word/list_readings. It also resolves a real ambiguity by explaining that level 7 means the HSK 7-9 band. It stops short of naming the sibling tools to route against.

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 infer this is for enumerating a whole level, but the description never states when to prefer it over lookup_word, list_readings, or check_text_level. No prerequisites or exclusions are given.

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