word_synonym

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

The description reveals the algorithm (collect WordNet synsets, cross-reference lemmas case-insensitively), scoping (approved and rejected entries included), and result behavior (term excluded, deduplicated, sorted, empty when no synsets). This substantially exceeds the readOnly/destructive flags already in annotations.

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?

Structured with a summary, use-case sentence, Parameters, and Returns sections, with no filler. Algorithmic details earn their place because they tell agents exactly what to expect from the call.

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?

With one documented parameter, an output schema, and annotations covering safety, the description supplies all remaining decision-relevant details: eligibility scope, exclusions, empty results, and ordering. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly appears 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?

The schema already fully describes the only parameter, term, with 100% coverage, and the description's 'The word to search synonyms for' adds no new meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies because the schema carries the semantic weight.

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?

Description opens with 'Search for vocabulary entries that are WordNet synonyms of a word,' a specific verb and resource. It further distinguishes the tool by stating it is for finding approved alternatives to non-STE words and by identifying its scope with sibling tools.

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 line 'Use this to find approved alternatives for a non-STE word' directly states when the tool is appropriate. It also names word_find/word_match/word_fuzzy as same-scope operations, but it does not explicitly say when to prefer those alternatives instead.

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