dictionary_lookup

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses the offline nature of the corpus, the scale, and the return fields. It does not mention potential limitations like rate limits or the fact that the corpus is static, but it adequately describes the tool's behavior for a lookup operation.

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?

Two sentences efficiently convey action, corpus, and return fields with precise numbers. No redundancy, every phrase adds value. The structure is front-loaded with the primary verb ('look up definitions').

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 output schema, the description fully covers what the tool returns (POS, definitions, IPA, etymology, translations) and the scope (offline corpus with language coverage). Sufficient for an agent to decide to use this tool for word definitions.

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 coverage is 67% (word and language have descriptions, limit does not). The description adds context about the corpus beyond schema but does not elaborate on parameters. For 'language', it mentions filtering by ISO 639-1 code, which matches the schema. The limit parameter is not discussed, but its default and range are in schema. Baseline 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 looks up definitions for a word from the offline Wiktextract corpus, specifying the scale (4,755 languages, 10.5M entries) and the return fields (part-of-speech, definitions, IPA, etymology, translations). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'dictionary_synonyms' or 'dictionary_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 when a comprehensive definition is needed, but does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools. However, the list of return fields (definitions, IPA, etymology, translations) makes it clear this is the general lookup, covering many use cases. No explicit when-not-to-use guidance is given.

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