lookup_word

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that matching is case- and diacritic-insensitive and that results are labeled with roots. It implies a read-only operation but does not mention pagination, error handling, or rate limits—though these are less critical for a simple lookup and an output schema is present.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose. Every sentence adds value: purpose, matching behavior, and usage guidance. No redundant phrasing.

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; the description covers purpose, matching nuances, and an alternative tool. The presence of an output schema means return values are already defined. It lacks explicit notes on no-match behavior, but this is a minor gap given the output schema.

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 clarifies 'word' as a surface form or lemma, but does not explain the 'limit' parameter beyond its default value. This partial coverage earns a mid-range score.

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 action: 'Look up a surface Arabic word (any inflected form or lemma).' It distinguishes from siblings by mentioning that lookup_root is for root-based searches and explicitly notes this tool is 'Good when the user gives a word but not the root.'

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?

Provides explicit guidance: use when the user supplies a word but not the root, and pivot to lookup_root when sibling words are desired. The mention of lookup_root as an alternative is a clear when-not condition, though search_meaning is not explicitly excluded.

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