lookup

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool returns definitions, readings, and tags, but doesn't cover aspects like error handling, rate limits, authentication needs, or whether it's read-only (though implied by '検索し' - search). More context on behavior would be helpful for safe invocation.

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 in Japanese that covers purpose and output. It's front-loaded with the main action and resource, with no wasted words, though it could be slightly more structured for clarity.

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 the tool's moderate complexity (single parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is adequate but incomplete. It explains what the tool does and returns, but lacks details on usage guidelines, behavioral traits, and error handling, which are important for a dictionary lookup tool in a multilingual context.

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 100%, with the parameter 'term' documented as '検索する語句（例: 食べる）' (term to search, e.g., '食べる'). The description adds no additional parameter details beyond what the schema provides, so it meets the baseline for high schema coverage without compensating value.

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 action ('検索し' - search) and resource ('Yomitanの辞書でterm/word' - Yomitan dictionary for terms/words), and specifies what information is returned ('定義・読み・タグ等' - definitions, readings, tags, etc.). It doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'kanji' or 'tokenize', but the focus on dictionary lookup is specific enough.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'kanji' or 'tokenize'. The description implies usage for dictionary searches but doesn't specify contexts, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer based on tool names alone.

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