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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds context beyond that: it discloses the size of the corpus (100 terms), that a response carries a definition and a link, and that only a single term is fetched. It does not say what happens when a term is ambiguous or unknown.

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 the resource and payload stated up front, so nothing needs to be re-read. The trailing English gloss "Glossary term." is mildly redundant but earns its place as a cross-language label rather than a restatement of the name.

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 two-parameter read tool with full schema coverage, rich annotations, and no output schema, the description covers what the tool is and what it returns. Only edge behavior for ambiguous or missing terms is left unstated, which is a minor gap at 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 100%, and the lingua enum including its default is already documented in the schema. The examples in the description ("tanino, perlage, safra, Reserva") duplicate the example the termo parameter already provides, so no additional parameter meaning is contributed.

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?

"Um termo do glossário da casa ... com a definição e o link" names a specific resource (a glossary entry) and states what comes back (definition plus link). The resource is clearly distinct from siblings like buscar_vinhos or ficha_do_vinho, though the description never explicitly contrasts itself with them.

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?

Usage is implied: the tool is for looking up the meaning of a specific glossary term such as "tanino" or "perlage". There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no mention of when to prefer buscar_no_site or buscar_vinhos instead.

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