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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the tool fetches and parses HTML into JSON, but doesn't cover critical aspects like error handling, rate limits, authentication needs, or what happens if the word isn't found. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the key action and output. It avoids unnecessary words and gets straight to the point. However, it could be slightly more structured by separating the input and output aspects for clarity.

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 moderate complexity (fetching and parsing HTML), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose and output format but lacks details on behavior, error cases, or return structure. It meets the minimum viable threshold but has clear gaps in context.

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 has 100% description coverage, with the 'word' parameter clearly documented. The description doesn't add any parameter details beyond what the schema provides (e.g., it doesn't specify format constraints or examples). With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description doesn't compensate but doesn't need to.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: it searches for a word's Longman HTML and returns parsed JSON with specific fields (dictionaryEntries, simpleForm, continuousForm). It uses specific verbs ('Busca', 'retorna') and identifies the resource (Longman HTML for a word). However, with no sibling tools mentioned, there's no opportunity to distinguish from alternatives, preventing a perfect score.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, prerequisites, or exclusions. It only describes what the tool does, without context for its application. Since no sibling tools are listed, this isn't a major gap, but it still lacks any usage instructions.

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