synonyms

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint and idempotentHint annotations, the description discloses important behaviors: polysemous words return multiple synsets, word-sense ambiguity is preserved, input is capped at 200 characters, and glosses may carry domain constraints that affect interpretation. These add real value over the annotations alone.

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 long but every section earns its place: the core purpose is front-loaded, the return type is explained, use cases are concrete, and the word-fit warning directly impacts how an agent should interpret results. No filler or repetition of the schema fields.

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 two-parameter tool with an output schema and helpful annotations, the description provides complete operational context: how results are structured, how to reason through the results, what constraints apply, and which sibling tools to use instead. An agent can correctly select and invoke this tool without additional information.

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% and both parameters are already described adequately. The description adds extra semantics not present in the schema, such as the 200-character input cap and the fact that max_synsets limits the number of word-sense synsets. This goes beyond baseline, but the schema still carries most of the parameter meaning.

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 opens with a specific verb-object pair ('Look up Estonian synonyms via WordNet') and defines the return type (synsets with definitions and example usages). It also differentiates itself from nearby sibling tools by referencing WordNet and by directing register-related questions to check_officialese and classify_register.

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?

The description gives explicit when-to-use guidance: picking a different word with the same meaning, e.g., swapping an overused verb. It also gives a detailed when-not-to-use rule—for 'is this the right word here?' questions it instructs reading and testing definitions against user context, and for register issues it points to sibling tools check_officialese and classify_register.

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