Get terminology (FR/Wolof)

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavior. It states the tool is a search that returns an empty array on no match, implying read-only and safe behavior. However, it does not confirm lack of side effects or authorization needs, leaving some ambiguity.

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 two concise sentences with no fluff. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and immediately useful guidance.

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 simple tool (2 params, no output schema), the description covers the use case and return behavior. However, it lacks parameter semantics, which is a gap that affects completeness.

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 has 2 parameters (query, limit) with 0% description coverage. The description does not mention any parameters, forcing the agent to rely solely on the schema for meaning. This is insufficient for correct parameter usage.

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 searches the MOHEBS French/Wolof terminology, specifying it is a fallback when the knowledge graph lacks a term. This distinguishes it from primary term searching tools and aligns with its name and title.

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 explicitly tells when to use the tool: as a fallback when the KG lacks term wording. It also instructs the agent to say the wording is missing if the result is empty, preventing hallucination. This is clear usage guidance.

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