define_word

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool returns definitions, part of speech, and examples as well as the language (English). However, it does not mention any potential side effects, authentication requirements, rate limits, or error conditions. The description is minimally transparent.

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 extremely concise, consisting of two sentences. Every word carries meaning, no fluff. The main action and parameter are front-loaded, making it easy for an agent to quickly grasp the tool's purpose.

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 simplicity (1 required parameter, no nested objects, output schema exists), the description covers the essential purpose. However, it lacks information on error handling (e.g., word not found), output format summary (though schema exists, a brief note would help), and any constraints. It is minimally complete for the complexity level.

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 0% coverage (no property descriptions). The description's line for the 'word' parameter ('The word to define.') provides minimal additional meaning. It does not clarify format (single word? phrase?), case sensitivity, or maximum length. With zero schema help, the description should compensate more.

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 action ('Look up') and the resource ('word's definitions, part of speech, and examples'). It is specific about the domain (English) and naturally distinguishes from sibling tools (scraping, searching for stocks, news, etc.), though it could explicitly state it is a dictionary lookup tool.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites, no mention of what to do if the word is not found. The description is purely functional without any usage recommendations.

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