search

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

Without annotations, the description carries the full burden. It implies the tool is read-only through its search nature, but does not explicitly state that no modifications occur or disclose any other behavioral traits. The return format is provided, which adds some transparency.

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 concise and well-structured, with a brief intro, a clear Args list, and a return format. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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 and the presence of an output schema in the description, it is mostly complete. It lacks mention of error handling or pagination, but the limit parameter covers result count. A minor gap in 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?

The description fully documents each parameter, adding meaning beyond the schema: query is a keyword/partial match, level lists exact CEFR values, and limit specifies range and default. This compensates for the 0% schema coverage.

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 searches the 29k EN→UA sense index and returns matching entries with specific fields. It distinguishes itself from siblings (check, check_natural, render, substantiate) by focusing on search rather than validation or rendering.

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 provides contextual hints ('useful for vocabulary lookups') but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or when not to use it. No exclusions or comparisons are made with sibling tools.

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