vocab

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It adds useful context: the dependency on a large 135MB database and the characteristics of the examples table (278k rows). But it does not explicitly state the read-only nature of these queries, how empty results behave, or what the response structure looks like — gaps that matter for a data-retrieval tool.

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 compact and front-loads the three operations in the first line, with detail following in a structured, scannable format. Each sentence earns its place. The compressed pipe-separated style is slightly dense but effective and free of filler.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value documentation is covered. The three operations are each explained with their query targets. But for a multi-operation tool, the description omits the explicit enumeration of operation values and limit semantics, and the sibling overlap with jlpt/kanji is unaddressed — leaving moderate gaps for correct invocation.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It partially does: it maps operations to parameters (search → query fragment, by_jlpt → level, examples → query against examples table). However, it never explains the 'limit' parameter, and the valid values for the required 'operation' parameter are only implied by the three operation names rather than stated explicitly.

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?

States a clear verb+resource (query vocabulary) and enumerates three specific operations: search, by_jlpt, examples. It implicitly distinguishes from the kanji sibling tool by focusing on vocabulary data. The purpose is clear, though the terse 'search | by_jlpt | examples' shorthand could be more explicit about what each operation returns.

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?

Discloses a key prerequisite ('Needs the big kanji.db (135MB, fetched)') and notes the examples table was 'previously unqueried', giving context on when the tool is ready to use. However, it never names sibling tools (jlpt, kanji) as alternatives or states when NOT to use this tool, leaving selection inference to the agent.

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