glossary

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered and the bar is lower. The description usefully signals breadth of coverage (pre-1918 letters, archival citation forms), but adds nothing about behavior beyond domain examples, and an output schema already exists for return values.

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?

A single dense sentence with the core purpose front-loaded and examples bracketed inline to show scope. No filler, though the fragment style (no explicit verb until the trailing 'explained') slightly strains readability.

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?

For a zero-required-parameter read-only lookup with an output schema, the description covers scope adequately and need not explain return values. What it omits is the routing context: with 'kinship' among its siblings, an agent cannot tell from this text which tool to prefer for marriage-relation terms.

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 coverage is 50%: 'term' is documented in the schema ('A word from an old document, or empty for all') while 'lang' carries only an en/ru enum with a default, which is largely self-explanatory. The description mentions no parameters at all, so it neither compensates for the coverage gap nor adds meaning beyond the schema; baseline 3 applies.

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 names a specific resource (old Russian terms from archival records) and enumerates concrete coverage domains: estates, kinship by marriage, archive citation, administrative units, pre-1918 orthography. It is clearly distinguishable from most siblings, but it does not differentiate itself from the 'kinship' sibling, which covers overlapping marriage-relation vocabulary (шурин, деверь, золовка).

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: an agent can infer 'use this when a term from an old record is unfamiliar', but there is no explicit when/when-not and no routing to alternatives such as 'kinship' for relationship questions or 'record_guide' for document-type questions. Thematically scoped but no disambiguation.

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