Pāli dictionary lookup

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld, non-destructive, so the safety bar is low; the description adds real context beyond them — diacritic-insensitive matching, alternative transliteration schemes (Velthuis, Harvard-Kyoto), and result labelling with inferred_spelling. The closing caveat that glosses are reference material rather than scripture usefully sets expectations about result authority.

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 short sentences ordered purpose-first, then input-matching behaviour, then an interpretive caveat; every clause carries information an agent needs. No redundant restatement of the title or annotations.

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 two-parameter read-only lookup with no output schema and full annotation coverage, the description is nearly complete: it names what kinds of content come back (grammar, roots, meanings), how input matching works, and how to interpret results. The only gap is any hint about result count or what `limit` controls.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage the description must compensate, and it does for `word` by explaining that diacritics are optional and that Velthuis/Harvard-Kyoto forms are accepted — meaning an agent knows several input spellings are valid. The second parameter, `limit`, is never mentioned, so the compensation is only partial.

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?

"Look up a Pāli word in the Digital Pāḷi Dictionary" gives a specific verb plus resource and scopes the output (grammar, roots, meanings), which separates it from siblings like lookup_name or search_texts. It stops short of explicitly contrasting with the nearest neighbour, the "glossary" tool, so the differentiation is implied rather than stated.

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?

Usage is implied by the resource named (a Pāli word lookup), and the diacritics note tells the agent it can call with unaccented input, which is a useful invocation hint. However, there is no explicit "use this when… / not when…" guidance and no mention of when to prefer glossary, lookup_name, or search_texts for a term.

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