Conjugate a verb

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations: the result covers the 'written standard' and is 'validated against two independent gold lexicons,' plus a field reference URL. This helps set expectations about output reliability and structure.

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 three sentences with no filler: it states the core function, gives input examples, and then adds a key detail about scope plus a reference link. 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?

With an output schema present, return values need no explanation. The description covers input format, language scope, output standards, validation, and a field reference. Nothing an agent needs to call the tool correctly is missing.

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 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters. The description reinforces that 'verb' is an infinitive with examples, but adds no new semantics beyond the schema. Baseline 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 begins with a precise verb+resource statement: 'Full conjugation table for a verb in one of 20+ languages.' It clearly distinguishes itself from the sibling tools find_infinitive and list_languages by focusing on producing conjugations from an infinitive input.

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 clearly states the required input condition ('Input is the infinitive') and gives concrete examples, making the usage context explicit. It does not explicitly mention when not to use it or route to siblings, but the context is clear enough for an agent to choose this tool for conjugation tasks.

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