translate_iulaan_query

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It only states a simple action ('show') with no details about the output format (e.g., list vs. single result), determinism, limitations, or what 'standard' means. This is a minimal disclosure that leaves many behavioral aspects unexplored.

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, focused sentence that immediately conveys the core purpose. It is front-loaded and avoids unnecessary words. However, it could have included a brief note about the output or usage context without bloating it, so it is concise but not maximally informative.

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 tool is simple (one parameter, no output schema), so the description need not explain return values, but it lacks critical context. It does not mention how this tool relates to iulaan searching, when to use it, or what the variants are used for. Given the sibling tools, the description is incomplete for an agent to confidently select and invoke this tool appropriately.

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 input schema only defines a required string 'query' with no description, so schema coverage is 0%. The description adds some meaning by specifying that the query is an 'English phrase,' which implies the input is a natural language phrase rather than arbitrary text. However, it doesn't clarify expected phrasing or any format constraints, so it only partially compensates for the schema's silence.

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 function: 'Show standard Dhivehi Thaana query variants for an English phrase.' It uses a specific verb ('show') and identifies the resource (Dhivehi Thaana query variants) and input (English phrase). While it doesn't elaborate on what 'variants' entails, it is not a tautology and distinguishes itself from sibling tools focused on searching/retrieving gazette or iulaan records.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that it could be a preprocessing step for iulaan searches, nor does it note any exclusions or alternatives. The intended use case is only implied by the tool name and sibling tools, leaving the agent to infer context.

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