get_lexicon

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does say the tool returns definitions, translations, and related words, which implies a read-only lookup, but it does not describe matching behavior, empty-result behavior, or any input constraints beyond 'Hebrew word.'

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 one concise sentence that front-loads the action and return value. Every word earns its place, with no repetition of the tool name or filler.

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?

This is a simple one-parameter read tool with no output schema, and the description adequately covers what it does and what it returns. It is slightly thin on edge-case behavior, but nothing essential for a basic call is missing.

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 100%: the schema already documents word as 'The Hebrew word to look up.' The description repeats this without adding extra semantics such as exact-match requirements, normalization, or accepted forms. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 specific verb–resource pair: look up a Hebrew word in the Sefaria lexicon, and enumerates the return contents: definitions, translations, and related words. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_text or get_related.

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 use case is implied: use it to look up Hebrew words in the lexicon. However, it gives no explicit guidance on when to choose this over related siblings such as get_word_completion, get_terms, or search, and it does not mention any exclusions.

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