lookup_word_lemma

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the return format ('JSON string') but doesn't describe error handling, rate limits, authentication needs, or what happens with invalid inputs. For a lookup tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.

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 efficiently structured with a clear purpose statement followed by separate Args and Returns sections. It avoids redundancy and wastes no words, though the 'JSON string' return specification could be slightly more informative (e.g., mentioning structure or keys).

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 tool's low complexity (single parameter) and the presence of an output schema (which handles return values), the description is reasonably complete for basic use. However, the lack of annotations and minimal behavioral context means users might not fully understand error cases or operational limits.

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 description coverage is 0%, but the description explicitly documents the single parameter 'word' and its purpose ('The word to look up'). This adds meaningful context beyond the bare schema. However, it doesn't specify constraints like word length, character set, or handling of compound words, leaving some ambiguity.

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 clearly states the verb ('look up') and resource ('lemma of a Norwegian word'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate this tool from its sibling 'lookup_word_forms', which likely serves a related but distinct function.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'lookup_word_forms' or other sibling tools. It states what the tool does but offers no context about appropriate use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions.

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