Look up English–Pāli glossary terms

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, closed-world), and the description adds genuine context: every entry names its source, and the tool works offline. The 'labels, not translations' line also discloses an output-quality limitation not captured in any structured field. Return shape beyond source attribution and result counts is not described.

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?

Three front-loaded sentences establish what is searched, what comes back, and the interpretive caveat, with the offline note at the end. Nothing is redundant, though the trailing 'Works offline' sentence is slightly orphaned from the lookup-focused flow.

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 read-only, three-parameter lookup with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers source scope, bidirectionality, entry provenance, and the semantic limits of glosses. Only details like result caps or ordering are absent, which is minor here.

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 100%, so the schema already explains term (with or without diacritics), limit, and the direction enum. The description's English/Pāli phrasing loosely maps onto the direction parameter but adds no new semantics, and it never mentions limit. Baseline 3 applies when the schema carries the burden.

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 gives a specific verb ('Look up') and a clearly bounded resource: the Digital Pāḷi Dictionary's English index plus curated numbered-list glosses, searched bidirectionally. It never names a sibling such as lookup_pali, so an agent must infer the boundary between this short-gloss index and a full dictionary lookup, which keeps it out of 5 territory.

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?

It states both use cases concretely — English word or phrase to find Pāli terms, or a Pāli word to see a short English gloss — and adds the important caveat that 'Glosses are labels for finding words, not translations,' which steers the agent away from misuse. It offers no explicit when-not or alternative routing against siblings, so it stops short of 5.

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