search_meaning

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

Although no annotations exist, the description discloses useful behavioral traits: results are 'ranked by relevance' and each carries its root, enabling chaining to `lookup_root`. It also clarifies search corpora per language. It doesn't explicitly state read-only nature, but for a search tool this is implied; still, with no annotations, full burden rests on the description, which meets most expectations but omits edge-case behavior like limits or error handling.

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 three sentences: a one-line purpose, a usage condition, and language/search behavior. It is front-loaded with the core action, and every sentence contributes to understanding selection or invocation. No unnecessary detail.

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?

Given the output schema exists and the tool is a straightforward search with one required parameter, the description covers usage, language options, result ranking, and the appropriate next step. It lacks mention of `limit`, but that's a schema default, and no other contextual gaps are apparent. The description is comprehensive for a search tool.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates by explaining `query` (concept in English or Arabic) and `lang` (English Lane glosses vs Arabic arramooz definitions). It does not elaborate on `limit`, but the parameter is self-explanatory and has a default in the schema. The description adds meaningful context for the two core parameters.

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 'Full-text search over dictionary meanings,' which clearly identifies the tool's function and resource. It distinguishes from sibling lookup tools by focusing on searching meanings, not exact-word lookup, and references calling `lookup_root` as a follow-up. This provides a specific verb and resource scope.

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: 'Use when the user asks "what's the Arabic root for X?" or gives a concept in English or Arabic.' It also explains the `lang` parameter's role in choosing between English glosses and Arabic definitions, and even directs follow-up to `lookup_root`. This is clear contextual guidance without needing to mention exclusions.

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