word.define

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

With no annotations, the description fully describes the output structure: IPA transcriptions, audio URLs, meanings grouped by part of speech with definitions, examples, synonyms, antonyms. It also notes the data source and license, providing good transparency for a simple lookup tool.

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?

A single, well-structured sentence that conveys purpose, source, and output structure efficiently with no unnecessary words.

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 simple tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is sufficiently complete. It covers the return elements, data source, and license. Minor gap: no mention of error handling or rate limits, but acceptable.

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% with a clear parameter description ('1-50 English alphabetic characters'). The description adds minimal extra meaning beyond confirming it's an English dictionary entry. 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 clearly states it returns an English dictionary entry, specifying the source (dictionaryapi.dev with Wiktionary data) and the type of data returned (IPA, audio, meanings, etc.). It distinguishes from the sibling 'word.related' which handles related words.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'word.related'. While the purpose is clear, the description does not mention usage context or when not to use it.

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