idioms

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

With no annotations present, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that the search spans the whole dictionary and therefore surfaces idioms listed under other words, plus the Gujarati-script input requirement. It says nothing about return shape, match semantics (substring vs. token), or what happens when no idiom is found.

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?

Three short sentences, purpose front-loaded, then the usage trigger, then the input-format and scope notes. Each sentence contributes something distinct and nothing is padded.

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 single-parameter lookup with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers purpose, trigger, search scope, and input encoding. The only real gap is expected result content, which is minor for a lookup tool of this simplicity.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does: 'Pass the word in Gujarati script' is a hard input-format constraint not in the schema, and 'idioms that contain a given word' clarifies the match is containment-based. It stops short of specifying transliteration handling or partial-word behavior.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource ('Find Gujarati idioms (રૂઢિપ્રયોગ) that contain a given word'), which is unambiguous and even supplies the native-language term for disambiguation. It does not name or contrast with the siblings 'define' and 'synonyms', so an agent must infer the split from the noun 'idioms' alone.

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?

'Use this when the user asks for idioms, phrases, or sayingings involving a Gujarati word' gives a concrete trigger condition covering the natural phrasings. It also clarifies the search is dictionary-wide rather than headword-scoped. No explicit when-not or sibling comparison is provided, which keeps it below a 5.

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