word

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

Annotations already declare this is a read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world operation. The description adds meaningful behavioral context by enumerating the full range of returned data (lexicons, semantic senses, occurrence counts, distribution, forms, references), which is important since there is no output schema. It does not mention rate limits or pagination, but for a read-only research tool this is a solid 4.

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?

It is a single, front-loaded sentence that states the tool's purpose first, followed by a compact list of outputs. Every item in the list adds information about what the agent can retrieve; there is no filler. Slightly dense formatting prevents a 5.

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 specialized research tool with no output schema, the description does a good job covering the returned data types and giving key format examples. The main gaps are the absence of usage guidance and the lack of any explanation for max_refs, but overall an agent can call this correctly.

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 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning. It gives useful format examples for the required key parameter (G26, H7225G, agape, λόγος), but never mentions max_refs, its default of 25, or how it limits references. That leaves one of two parameters unexplained, so a 3.

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?

States a specific verb ('Word study') and resource (Strong's number or lemma), with concrete key format examples (G26, H7225G, agape, λόγος). It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like dictionary or search, which may overlap in lexical lookup, so a 4 is appropriate.

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 implies usage by specifying input types and examples, but offers no explicit when-to-use guidance, no when-not-to-use conditions, and no named alternatives among the many siblings. An agent can infer it is for word-level lexical research, but must guess how it differs from dictionary or search.

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