urban_random

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. However, the description adds nothing beyond the name, and it doesn't explain what a random result contains or how randomness is scoped, so it provides no context beyond the structured fields.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is appropriately sized for a zero-argument tool, though it is so terse that it carries little extra information.

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?

The tool is simple (0 params, annotations present, no output schema), so this short description is nearly sufficient. What it leaves unstated is the shape of a returned definition (word, meaning, example, author) and whether repeated calls can return the same entry.

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?

This zero-parameter tool sets a baseline score of 4; there are no parameter semantics that the description needs to explain.

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?

A specific verb ("Get") plus a specific resource with a randomness qualifier ("random Urban Dictionary definitions") makes the intent unambiguous. It does not distinguish itself from the closely related sibling urban_define, which looks up a specific term, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

There is no guidance on when to pick this over urban_define or when a random definition is preferable to a targeted lookup. Usage has to be inferred entirely from the word "random".

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