explain_term

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full burden for behavioral transparency. It only states that the tool returns a 'plain English explanation' but does not disclose output format, length, source, or any side effects. Given the absence of annotations, this is insufficient.

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 concise sentence that immediately conveys the tool's purpose. No superfluous information, and it is front-loaded for quick scanning.

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 tool's simplicity (one required string parameter, no output schema), the description covers the core purpose and parameter adequately. However, missing details about the return value (e.g., format, length) slightly reduce 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 the parameter 'term' is already well-documented with description and examples. The tool description adds marginal value by indicating the explanation is in 'plain English', but does not enhance understanding of the parameter beyond what the schema provides.

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?

Description clearly states the verb 'Get a plain English explanation' and the resource 'any US immigration term, form, or concept'. It distinguishes from sibling tools 'check_priority_date' and 'get_visa_bulletin' which are specific to particular artifacts, while this tool covers all terms.

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 does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It implies usage for general immigration terminology, but fails to mention when to use siblings (e.g., for priority date or visa bulletin specific queries). No exclusions or prerequisites are given.

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