lookup_root

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full transparency burden and excels. It discloses normalization of diacritics and letter-variants, the three distinct data sources, and the critical vocalization contrast ("Input is diacritic-insensitive; output is not"), which are essential behavioral details beyond what any schema could convey.

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 detailed but well-organized, with the primary statement first and supporting details in a scannable list. It avoids redundancy, though the list of letter variants (ا/أ/إ/آ, ي/ى, ه/ة) could be condensed without loss.

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 description fully equips the agent by explaining the three result sources, the shape of verb entries (tense-availability flags in `extra`), and the vocalization behavior. Since an output schema exists, the description doesn't need to detail the return structure further; it covers input, processing, and output expectations.

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 has zero description for the `root` parameter, but the description compensates fully with concrete examples of accepted forms ("كتب", "ك ت ب", "ك-ت-ب", with diacritics) and explains the normalization behavior. This gives the agent complete understanding of what the parameter accepts.

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 "Look up an Arabic root and return all dictionary entries under it," which names a specific verb and resource. It further distinguishes from siblings by clarifying root-based lookup versus word-based lookup, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 a clear trigger: "Use this when the user has already identified the root" and a secondary case: "or when you want to see all sibling words for a lemma." However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives like lookup_word or search_meaning, so it lacks explicit when-not-to-use guidance.

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