Look up a word in the kasahorow dictionary (WOAKA). fl = your language, tl = the language of the word. Returns definitions with parts of speech.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| fl | Yes | Your language, ISO code (e.g. 'en'). | |
| tl | Yes | The word's language, ISO code (e.g. 'ak', 'sw'). | |
| word | Yes | The word or short phrase to look up. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description indicates the tool is read-only and returns 'definitions with parts of speech'. However, since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden and fails to disclose potential error cases or idempotency guarantees.
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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the purpose. It is brief and every phrase adds meaning, though it could be slightly expanded with usage guidance without losing conciseness.
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 absence of an output schema, the description adequately summarizes the return value. All three required parameters are covered, and the sibling tool is mentioned. It does not specify error handling or language availability, but for a straightforward lookup, the description is sufficient.
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 description adds value beyond the schema by explicitly defining 'fl' as 'your language' and 'tl' as 'the word's language', clarifying the directionality of the lookup. The schema already provides ISO code examples, but the description resolves ambiguity.
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: looking up a word in the kasahorow dictionary. It specifies the dictionary name (WOAKA) and distinguishes from the sibling tool 'validate_translation' by focusing on lookup rather than validation.
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. It does not mention when not to use it or any prerequisites for using the dictionary (e.g., language availability or internet connection).
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
The two tools serve clearly distinct purposes: lookup_word is a dictionary lookup, while validate_translation is a paid validation service. No overlap in functionality.
Both tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern in snake_case: lookup_word and validate_translation.
Only 2 tools is on the low side for a dictionary/translation service, but it may be acceptable for a niche purpose. Slightly more tools would improve coverage.
The server lacks basic features like listing supported languages, translating text, or adding words. The paid validation tool is an outlier, leaving significant gaps in a typical dictionary workflow.
