Phrase Library

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states that results include 'tempo star ladders and teaching notes', implying a read operation, but does not disclose sorting, pagination, or default behavior when no parameters are given. The description is not misleading but lacks depth.

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 a single sentence of 20 words, front-loaded with the main purpose and filters, with no redundant or filler words. Every phrase earns its place.

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 6 optional parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description provides a reasonable overview but lacks details on return format, default behavior (e.g., if no query provided), and pagination. It hints at output features but is not fully complete.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates by listing the filterable fields: 'text, taal, gharana, usage tag, or difficulty'. This adds meaning beyond the schema's plain types and enums, clarifying how each parameter is used.

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 the tool's purpose: 'Look up tabla bol phrases' by various criteria, distinguishing it from sibling tools like composition_transposer or practice_coach. The verb 'look up' and resource 'tabla bol phrases' are specific, and the listed filters differentiate it from other lookup tools.

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 when needing to find phrases by text, taal, etc., but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs. alternatives like glossary_lookup or skill_path. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.

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