lookup_word

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

No annotations are present, but the description discloses what the tool returns (parsing, collation, Strong's number, gloss), which is transparent about its behavior. It does not mention error handling or side effects, but for a read-only lookup this is adequate.

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 extremely concise—two sentences—and front-loads the action and the key output information. There is no fluff or redundancy.

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?

The description is complete enough for a simple lookup tool: it explains the input format and the output categories. Given the sibling tools and lack of an explicit output schema, the description provides sufficient context to use the tool correctly.

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 schema only specifies type 'string', but the description enriches the parameter by showing valid token examples (e.g., 'JHNc1v1w5' or 'JHN_1:1w5'), clarifying the expected format. This goes beyond the schema's minimal information.

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's purpose with a specific verb ('drill down into') and resource ('specific original word link token'), and lists the output categories. It distinguishes itself from siblings like get_passage or search_text by focusing on a single token lookup.

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 word token ID is available, and gives example token formats. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over sibling tools or when not to use it, leaving some inference required.

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