find_related_words

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint and idempotentHint. The description adds substantial behavioral context beyond annotations: inflections crowding results, antonyms appearing, polysemy not disambiguated, single-word input, and 200-character cap. This fully discloses 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 well-structured with paragraphs and bullet points, but it is somewhat verbose (multiple paragraphs with known quirks). It front-loads purpose and usage, but some details could be more concise. Still, it earns its length due to informativeness.

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 complexity of the tool (embedding model quirks, domain-specific Estonian), the description is complete. It covers purpose, usage, limitations, and behavioral quirks. The output schema exists, so return values are not needed in the description.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters with descriptions. The description does not add extra meaning beyond what the schema provides, so baseline 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 finds Estonian words semantically similar via fastText, with specific verb 'find' and resource 'related words'. It distinguishes from sibling 'synonyms' by explaining the difference between fastText similarity and WordNet synonyms.

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?

Explicitly describes when to use (breaking repetition, finding alternative phrasings, expanding vocabulary) and when not (when exact synonyms are needed), and contrasts with the 'synonyms' tool. Provides clear context for selection.

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