vocab

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses a real operational constraint – the 135MB kanji.db dependency that must be fetched – but says nothing about read-only semantics, latency, or error behavior. Partial credit for the dependency note.

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?

Compact and front-loaded with the resource and operations; each fragment carries information. The terse pipe syntax is slightly cryptic but wastes no words.

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 values need not be explained, and the DB dependency is a helpful addition. However, with four parameters at 0% schema coverage, an undefined operation enum, and no usage routing against siblings, the definition is still thinner than the tool's complexity warrants.

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 explains query (expression/reading/translation fragment) and level (JLPT level), covering two of four parameters, but leaves limit undocumented and only implicitly lists the operation values. It adds real value yet is incomplete.

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 the resource (vocabulary) and its two operations explicitly (search, by_jlpt), so an agent can tell it is a Japanese vocabulary lookup tool with a multiplexed operation switch. It does not distinguish itself from the sibling 'jlpt' tool, whose territory the by_jlpt operation partly overlaps.

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 says what each operation takes but never says when to use vocab vs. jlpt, kanji, or knowledge, nor which operation to pick for which intent. The selection guidance is left entirely to inference.

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