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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and discloses useful behavior: returned quote, source_url, glossary status, machine_rule when available, and "needs Alex" conflict handling. It does not discuss permissions, rate limits, or caching, but for a read-only definition lookup these are minor gaps.

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?

Front-loads the core action and return shape, then adds only essential glossary and fallback details. There is no wasted text.

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 one-parameter lookup tool with no output schema, the description explains the returned fields and fallback behavior sufficiently for correct invocation and interpretation. No annotations are needed to understand its read-only definition role.

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% and the term parameter already includes examples such as 'FTFC', 'rev strat', and 'level of reclaim'. The description reinforces that term is a TheStrat word but adds no syntax or formatting detail beyond the schema.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: "Define a TheStrat term" with a quote and source_url. It also explains the glossary scope and the non-glossary fallback to docs_search, so an agent can distinguish it from docs_search without opening schemas.

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?

Clearly indicates the primary use case (glossary terms) and fallback behavior when the term is not in the glossary: returning best docs_search hits. It does not explicitly say when to choose docs_search instead for general documentation lookup, but the fallback gives enough routing context.

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