Search Tatoeba Sentences

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, etc. The description adds license info (CC-BY 2.0 FR) but does not disclose additional behaviors like rate limits, pagination, or response format. With annotations covering key behavioral hints, the description is adequate but not enhanced.

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?

Two sentences, concise and front-loaded with purpose. The trailing 'Tatoeba' is slightly redundant but does not harm clarity. Could be tighter but overall efficient.

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 simple search tool and existence of output schema, the description covers major functionality: filtering by language, audio, keyword, and sorting. It also adds dataset scale and license. Missing mention of default language or link to language code tool, but still fairly 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. However, the description misrepresents the sort options (lists 'relevance/random/created/modified' but misses 'words' from the enum). It adds marginal value over the schema and lacks precision.

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 it searches Tatoeba sentences (specific verb and resource) and mentions the dataset size and language count. However, it does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools like language.tatoeba.languages or language.tatoeba.sentence.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., tatoeba.languages for codes, tatoeba.sentence for single sentence). The description implies usage for searching but lacks explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use context.

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