kanji

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden; it states nothing about read-only vs mutating behavior, authentication, rate limits, pagination, or result-count behavior. Output schema exists so return shape is covered, but the operational traits an agent needs before invoking a 6-parameter tool are absent.

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 operation list is front-loaded, followed by terse per-operation parameter hints with no filler sentences. The fragment style is dense but efficient; nothing is wasted, though the run-on second block could be slightly more scannable.

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 an output schema exists, return values need not be described, and the description covers most parameters and all operations. The remaining gaps are the unmentioned 'limit' parameter and the absence of a formal enum for 'operation' (the schema leaves it an open string), which the prose only partially mitigates.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage across 6 parameters, the description compensates well: it explains query semantics (single kanji vs English fragment, varying by operation), level (N5..N1), grade (1..8), and radical (a character). Only 'limit' is left entirely unexplained and the per-operation value constraints are prose rather than schema enums.

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 names a specific resource (kanji dictionary) and enumerates six concrete operations (lookup, search, by_jlpt, by_grade, by_radical, random), so an agent immediately knows what the tool is and what verbs it supports. It does not, however, differentiate itself from siblings like jlpt or vocab, which likely overlap on Japanese-language lookups.

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?

It maps each operation to its expected argument form (lookup→single char, search→English fragment, by_jlpt→N5..N1, by_grade→1..8, random→optional level), which implies when each operation applies. But there is no guidance on when to prefer this tool over the sibling jlpt/vocab tools, and no exclusions or prerequisites are stated.

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