fetch_translation_word

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries full burden. It adds context about the library's size ('thousands of articles') but doesn't disclose behavior such as whether it returns a list or single item, nor any read-only/auth implications beyond the verb 'Get'.

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 concise sentences: the first states the tool's purpose and scope, the second provides a key usage tip. No fluff, front-loaded.

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 straightforward lookup tool with all-optional parameters and no output schema, the description covers the primary use case and the main search parameter. It doesn't detail return format, but that's not expected without an output schema. Minor gaps like language/organization are covered by defaults.

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 already describes term, filter, and category. The description adds a practical hint to use filter for searching, but doesn't explain the interaction between term and filter or the remaining language/organization parameters. With 60% schema coverage, this is adequate but not highly informative.

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 uses a specific verb phrase 'Get Translation Word articles' and enumerates content types (key biblical terms, names, places, other words), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like fetch_translation_notes or fetch_scripture.

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?

It gives an explicit directive to use the filter parameter for searching across all words, and the description implies that this tool is for word/article lookups. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with alternatives or state when not to use it, so not a 5.

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