Get Word Definition

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

Annotations already indicate readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable behavioral details: it draws from multiple primary dictionaries, names a specific source, and explains that Thai entries are scholarly works always available regardless of language settings. No contradictions with 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?

The description is well-structured with a clear purpose statement followed by an informative section about dictionary sources. It uses bullet points and emojis effectively. While slightly longer than necessary, each sentence adds value and the key information is front-loaded.

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 presence of an output schema (not shown but indicated), the description does not need to explain return values. The tool's purpose, source details, and usage hints are sufficiently covered. A minor gap is the lack of explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus the many sibling search tools.

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 input schema has full coverage (100%) and includes clear descriptions for each parameter (word, language with enum, limit_context). The description does not add new parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb ('Look up') and resource ('dictionary meaning of a Pāli word') with additional context ('sutta context'). It clearly distinguishes itself from sibling tools by emphasizing its role as a Pāli Dictionary Bridge with primary source documentation.

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 description explains the tool's function as a dictionary bridge and provides guidance on handling Thai entries (always available, need translation). However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like search_by_keyword or search_semantic, leaving some ambiguity for the agent.

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