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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, closed-world, and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered and the description's "do not change it" is largely redundant. What the description does add is the shape of the result (version, owner, effective date), which is genuinely useful context beyond the annotations, but it says nothing about behavior for terms that do not exist or whether omitting the argument returns the whole workspace.

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 short sentences with no filler, and the substantive content (the returned metadata) comes first. The opening fragment is slightly awkward but costs little.

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?

With no output schema and zero schema description coverage, the description carries most of the burden, yet it omits the behavior of the only parameter and the response for unknown or missing terms. It covers the tool's purpose and result fields but leaves the agent guessing at the actual call semantics.

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?

There is one optional parameter (terms, an array of strings capped at 50) with 0% schema description coverage, so the schema itself explains nothing about intended input. The description implies term lookup but does not say the parameter is a list of term names, nor what an empty or omitted value means.

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 conveys the content returned (workspace term definitions with version, owner, and effective date), but it opens with a noun phrase rather than a verb+resource statement of the action. It never distinguishes itself from the sibling propose_definitions, which is the closest-looking alternative and the one an agent is most likely to confuse it with.

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 is no guidance on when to call this versus get_check, propose_definitions, or submit_claim_bundle. The only usage-adjacent sentence, "Give the definition as it is; do not change it," is an instruction about handling the result, not a routing rule, and no prerequisites or exclusions are stated.

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