word_list

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description aligns with those. It adds substantial behavioral context beyond the annotations: the operation is expensive, the vocabulary holds thousands of entries, and pagination works through offset and max_results with total and truncated fields describing the result set.

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 front-loads the core purpose and usage guidance in the first two sentences, then uses clear headings for Parameters and Returns. The Parameters section is somewhat redundant with the schema, but the structure is scannable and the extra detail about return semantics 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 paginated list operation with an existing output schema, the description covers everything needed: when to use it, when to use an alternative, cost implications, pagination parameters, and the meaning of the returned fields. The max_results upper bound appears only in the schema, but that is acceptable since the schema is part of the tool contract.

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%, so the input schema already fully documents offset and max_results, including defaults and bounds. The description's Parameters section largely restates the schema ('maximum number... to return', 'skip before returning results') without adding meaningful new semantic information. The baseline of 3 applies because the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 uses a specific verb-resource pair: 'Return all vocabulary entries.' It also differentiates itself from the sibling word_count by directing the agent to use word_count when only the total is needed. The pagination nuance is clarified in the Returns section, so the overall intent is unambiguous.

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 explicitly states when to use this tool: 'Only use when you need to process the full vocabulary.' It names the alternative tool and the condition for choosing it: 'Use word_count instead if you only need the total.' It also warns that the operation is expensive and returns thousands of entries, giving the agent a clear reason to prefer lighter alternatives.

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