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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the behavioral disclosure burden. It states the tool is 'free, ungated, no attribution required,' which implies a low-risk read operation, but it does not explicitly say what happens on invocation (e.g., returns the glossary data) or describe any side effects, limits, or error behavior. This is adequate but not rich.

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 efficient and front-loaded with the core value (the glossary content), followed by the alternative fetch URL and a closing note about corrections. It packs useful info without excess, though the 'Corrections are worth more' line is slightly tangential but still relevant context.

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 there is no output schema and no annotations, the description should clarify what the tool returns. It implies it provides the glossary (since it describes the content and gives an alternative URL for the same data), but it doesn't explicitly state the return format or how results are structured. It also leaves the 'using' parameter unexplained. This is a moderate gap for a simple tool.

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 only 50% — the 'using' parameter has no description in the schema. The tool description does not compensate: it never explains what 'using' does, nor does it clarify the 'name' parameter beyond what the schema already says. With such low coverage, the description should add meaning to the parameters, but it adds none.

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 provides 148 Sanskrit terms with English translations and the reasoning behind each choice, which is a specific verb (gift/take) and resource (Abhidharmasamuccaya glossary). It distinguishes itself from siblings like gift_correct by focusing on retrieval rather than correction, and even mentions an alternative direct fetch URL, making its purpose unmistakable.

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?

It mentions an alternative way to get the same data (direct URL fetch) and notes it's free/ungated, giving some usage context. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus sibling tools like gift_correct or other read tools, nor does it provide exclusions or conditions for use.

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