search_dictionary

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

With no annotations, the description carries the disclosure burden. It provides meaningful behavioral details: partial matching, case-insensitivity, a 50-result cap, and workspace-specific mastery reading. It does not cover return format or side effects, but for a search tool these are less critical and the key behaviors are well disclosed.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and includes only relevant details. Every clause adds information without repetition or 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?

For a search tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description covers the search scope, case sensitivity, result limit, and a workspace-specific behavior. It could mention return values or that file/erdId sources behave differently, but those are minor gaps compared to its overall completeness.

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 parameters are already documented. The description adds valuable semantics by explaining that the query is a partial-match across specific fields and that workspaceId triggers reading the latest workspace-standard master, enriching the schema's basic descriptions.

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 identifies the tool as a partial-match word-list search across logical/physical/abbreviation/English/synonyms, with specific behaviors (case-insensitive, max 50). This differentiates it from sibling tools like list_erds or upsert_dictionary_word, which serve different purposes.

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 implies usage by explaining what the tool searches and its workspace-specific behavior, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites. The workspace-standard note gives context but not comparative guidance.

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