search_pronunciations

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it delivers: it explains the search index limitation, the negative example with 'Kelsey' and `kubectl`, the fields returned, and the fact that notes are not searchable. This is far more than a generic 'Search' claim.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose, then adds a necessary limitation, a return-shape summary, and a usage guideline. Every sentence contributes something non-redundant, and the negative example earns its place by preventing a likely misquery.

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 two-parameter search tool with an output schema, the description supplies the matching semantics, the scope limitation, the returned fields, and when to choose the tool. Nothing essential for correct invocation is missing, and the output schema can handle the precise return structure.

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. It clearly defines the `query` semantics as a substring match against `word` and `category`. The `limit` parameter is not described, though its default is in the schema and its meaning is self-evident from the name.

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: 'Search the dictionary by partial word or category match.' It further clarifies the matching scope and explicitly contrasts itself with the exact-lookup behavior of `pronounce`, so an agent can distinguish it from siblings.

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 explicitly states when to use this tool ('when the exact spelling is unknown or when browsing entries by category') and when to use an alternative ('To read an entry's notes, look it up with `pronounce`'). This gives clear decision guidance relative to the sibling tools.

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