pgroonga_lookup_variants

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

No annotations are present, so the description must carry the burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Bounded' and 'discovered profile' are unexplained, and the description does not mention error conditions, limits, or side effects. The two-line description adds little beyond the tool's basic function.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that gets to the point quickly. No wasted words, but the jargon ('bounded dictionary variants', 'discovered profile') makes it less accessible. Overall, it is concise but could be clearer.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value details are presumably covered, but the description still leaves critical context missing: what does 'bounded' mean (limit, max size?), how is the profile discovered, and what errors can occur? For a tool with two parameters and no annotations, this is insufficient for confident use.

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%, and the description does not clarify the parameters. It mentions 'text' (likely the input) but never explains that 'index' refers to a Groonga index or how it relates to the profile. With zero coverage, the description should compensate, but it doesn't.

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 states a clear action: 'Normalize text and return bounded dictionary variants.' It distinguishes itself from sibling pgroonga_normalize_text by adding the dictionary-variants return. However, 'for the discovered profile' is ambiguous and could confuse agents (which profile? how discovered?).

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 tool's intended use is implied: use when you need both normalization and dictionary-based variant lookup. But there is no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over pgroonga_normalize_text or pgroonga_search, and no mention of prerequisites (e.g., an existing index or normalization profile).

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