dictionary_lookup

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses stable sense IDs, source provenance, and detailed budget behavior: independent detail limits, fair sharing across senses, 0 disabling a detail class, and truncated fields being listed on each sense. This provides substantial behavioral transparency beyond a simple lookup message.

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 compact, front-loads the core purpose, and uses every sentence productively. It covers return contents, language tag usage, limit semantics, and truncation behavior without fluff.

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 no annotations, seven parameters, and an output schema, the description covers the core invocation needs: required word, language, limit, and detail budget behavior. The main remaining gap is the undocumented part_of_speech parameter and the lack of explicit sibling differentiation, but an agent can still invoke the tool correctly for standard lookups.

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 86%, so most parameters are already documented. The description adds valuable semantics by clarifying that limit is the number of senses and that detail limits are independent total budgets fairly shared across senses. It does not clarify the part_of_speech parameter's filtering semantics, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Look up distinct dictionary senses for a word.' It enumerates returned content such as glosses, examples, IPA, etymology, and translations, which clearly distinguishes it from siblings like dictionary_synonyms or dictionary_translate even without naming them.

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 intended use is implied by 'Look up distinct dictionary senses' and the return list, but the description never explicitly says when to choose this tool versus dictionary_synonyms, dictionary_translate, dictionary_relations, or other siblings. There is no when-not-to-use guidance or alternative routing.

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