dictionary_etymologically_related

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

No annotations exist, so the description must carry the behavioral burden. It mentions 'offline' indicating no network calls, but does not state that the tool is read-only, non-destructive, or what happens if the word is not found. Minimal disclosure.

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 sentence, very concise but at the expense of completeness. It is front-loaded but omits critical information about parameters and usage. Concision should not sacrifice necessary detail.

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?

With no output schema or annotations, the description should explain return format, edge cases, and behavior. It does not. The tool involves a knowledge graph lookup with three parameters; the description is insufficient for an agent to use correctly without guessing.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds no explanation for 'word' (e.g., case sensitivity, allowed characters), 'language' (role of default en, whether it defines input or output language), or 'limit' (what it limits). No value beyond schema defaults.

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 'etymologically related words / cognates' via ConceptNet, which is a specific resource and verb. It distinguishes from siblings like 'dictionary_etymology' (which likely gives a word's etymology) and 'dictionary_derived_from' (derivational relations).

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 does not provide when to use this tool over other sibling tools (e.g., synonyms, antonyms, hyponyms). It implies usage for etymological relations but offers no guidance on alternatives or exclusions. Given many siblings, this lack of direction hurts usability.

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