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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full behavioral disclosure burden. Beyond the basic purpose, it does not state whether the operation is read-only, how results are returned, whether the term is matched exactly or partially, or any behavior about the limit parameter. The only additional detail is the entry count, which is more about scale than behavior.

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 front-loaded sentence that states the action, object, and scope in 11 words. Every word contributes meaning, with no filler or redundancy. It is appropriately concise for a simple lookup tool.

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 no output schema and no annotations, the description should provide more context about expected results, usage context, or limitations. It only states the function, leaving the agent without enough information to predict return format, default behavior, or edge cases. This is insufficient for a tool with two parameters and no structured safety hints.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It clarifies that 'term' is a Buddhist term, but it does not explain the 'limit' parameter or any semantics beyond the schema's default value. No parameter details are given for limit, and the description only partially covers the term's meaning.

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 ('look up') and identifies the resource clearly: Buddhist terms across fojin's dictionaries, with a scale indicator (748K+ entries). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like search_corpus or lookup_entity by scoping it to dictionary lookup.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention any exclusions or scenarios where a sibling tool would be more appropriate, leaving the agent to infer usage from the purpose alone.

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