dictionary_etymology

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

With no annotations, the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It indicates a read operation returning text from an offline corpus, which is transparent about safety, but does not specify behavior for unknown words (e.g., empty string or error) or mention that no network is needed.

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, efficient sentence that conveys all necessary information without any redundant or extraneous text. It is optimally concise.

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 no output schema, the description adequately covers the source and return type. However, it could be more complete by indicating whether multiple etymologies are returned or the format of the text (e.g., plain text). Overall, it is sufficiently complete given the tool's simplicity.

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?

The input schema already provides complete descriptions for both parameters (word and language) with 100% coverage. The description adds no additional semantic meaning beyond the schema, so a baseline score of 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 the tool returns etymology text for a word from the offline Wiktextract corpus, using a specific verb and resource. It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools like dictionary_synonyms or dictionary_lookup by focusing on etymology.

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 implies usage through the tool name and purpose (etymology lookups), but it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as dictionary_etymologically_related or dictionary_lookup. No when-not-to-use or prerequisite information is provided.

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