lookup_word

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility. It discloses the data source (Free Dictionary API) and that it's free, but does not mention any behavioral traits such as rate limits, error handling (e.g., word not found), response size, or potential side effects (none expected). This leaves the agent with incomplete understanding of the tool's 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 two sentences in Chinese, concise and to the point. It includes a data source note which is helpful but not essential. Overall, it is efficiently structured with no redundant information, though the second sentence could be integrated.

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 (single parameter, output schema exists), the description covers the key types of information returned (definitions, phonetic symbols, etc.) and mentions the data source. It does not explain output structure, but the output schema likely handles that. The description is complete enough for basic use.

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?

There is only one parameter, 'word', with a schema description '要查询的英文单词' (the English word to query). The tool description does not add meaning beyond the schema; it merely lists the types of data returned. Since schema coverage is 100%, the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 it queries English words for definitions, phonetic symbols, parts of speech, example sentences, etc. The verb '查询' (look up) and resource '英文单词' (English word) are specific. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_country_info or get_random_activity by focusing on language lookup.

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 does not provide explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. However, the tool's purpose is straightforward (English word lookup), so usage is implied. No alternatives are mentioned, but sibling tools cover different domains, so confusion is unlikely.

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