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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It does not mention whether this is a write operation, what happens after submission, required permissions, or any side effects. The agent is left without information about the tool's effects or response.

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, consisting of two sentences that get straight to the point. The core purpose is front-loaded, making it easy to scan. It is not verbose, though it could be more structured by adding explicit parameter guidance.

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?

For a tool with three parameters and no output schema or annotations, the description is insufficient. It lacks details on parameter formats, required fields, expected behavior, and return values. An agent would need to infer a lot, making this a minimal but inadequate definition.

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 description coverage is 0%, meaning the description provides no information about the parameters (name, term, correction). The description does not explain what each field represents or how they should be filled, leaving the agent to guess based on the schema alone.

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: reporting errors in the glossary. It uses a specific verb ('tell') and identifies the resource ('the glossary'). It is distinguishable from siblings by its unique focus on corrections, though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives.

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 when to use it (when you find a glossary mistake) and even suggests it's the preferred way to give feedback ('the only thing we would actually like back'). However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with sibling tools or state when not to use it.

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