dutch_word_details

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses that the tool makes a network call and is slower, and that bulk use is inappropriate. However, it does not mention failure modes, rate limits, or what happens for unknown words.

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?

Two efficient sentences with no filler. The tool's resource and output contents are front-loaded, and the usage caveat is provided at the end without redundancy.

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?

For a one-parameter lookup tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, key return fields, and a practical usage warning. It lacks explicit handling of missing words or network errors, but those are minor given the tool's simplicity.

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 100% and the single 'word' parameter is already documented as 'Dutch word or wordform to look up.' The description adds output-field context but no additional parameter semantics, matching the baseline for complete schema coverage.

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 verb ('Get'), a specific resource (official Dutch word details from woordenlijst.org), and enumerates the returned fields (lemma, woordsoort, uitspraak, etc.). This clearly differentiates it from the sibling check/validate tools, which focus on correctness rather than lexical details.

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 provides clear usage context: use for individual important words, not bulk lookups. It also implicitly separates this tool from validation siblings, though it does not explicitly name an alternative or state when to choose a sibling instead.

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