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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds the meaningful behavioral detail that results span 21 languages, which is not in the annotations. It says nothing about the return format, ordering, or size of the name list, so it adds only modest value.

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?

One front-loaded sentence delivers the resource, the nature of the values (names and search terms), and the language scope with no padding. The parenthetical examples are illustrative rather than wasteful. It would be marginally better if the language-selection behavior led rather than trailed.

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 simple read-only lookup with one optional enum parameter and no output schema, the description covers what it returns and the language dimension. The main omission is the default behavior when lang is not supplied, which an agent needs in order to call it confidently. Otherwise complete for this complexity level.

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%: the single lang parameter is documented only by its 21-value enum. The description's 'in one of 21 languages' corroborates the enum cardinality and signals that lang selects the language, but it does not explain the behavior when lang is omitted (the parameter is optional with no required fields) or whether a default locale is used.

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 states a specific resource: alternate names and search terms for the Veliane matchmaking site, with a multilingual scope of 21 languages. It is distinguishable from siblings like get_veliane_facts or get_veliane_price, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with them. The phrasing 'Every other name and search term' is slightly loose but still conveys the payload.

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 tool versus the six sibling Veliane tools, nor any prerequisite or exclusion. The agent must infer from the name alone that this is the terminology/alias lookup rather than the facts or pricing lookup. No context about downstream use is provided.

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