Lookup-Modern-Chinese-Dictionary

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. '查单词' only indicates a lookup action without describing what the tool returns, whether it requires authentication, rate limits, error conditions, or any behavioral traits. This is inadequate for a tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 extremely concise at just two characters. It's front-loaded with the core action, though this brevity comes at the cost of completeness rather than being efficiently informative.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, the description is completely inadequate. It doesn't explain what the tool does beyond the name, what it returns, or how to use the parameter. This leaves the agent with insufficient information to use the tool effectively.

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 schema has 1 parameter with 0% description coverage. The description doesn't mention the 'word' parameter at all, providing no semantic context beyond what's implied by the tool name. It fails to compensate for the schema's lack of parameter documentation.

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 '查单词' (look up a word) restates the tool name 'lookup_word' in Chinese, making it tautological. It specifies the verb 'look up' and resource 'word', but doesn't provide any additional context about what kind of lookup this is (dictionary, translation, definition, etc.).

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?

There are no explicit guidelines about when to use this tool. The description doesn't mention any prerequisites, alternatives, or specific contexts. With no sibling tools, the lack of guidance is less critical but still leaves the agent without usage context.

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