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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive and closed-world behavior, so the safety profile needs no restating. The description adds the useful detail of what each match contains, but says nothing about matching behavior (exact vs. partial, case/diacritic handling) or result ordering beyond what the schema implies.

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?

A single well-formed sentence with the resource front-loaded and the return payload in a compact parenthetical; nothing is wasted, though it is terse enough to leave the usage question open.

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-only lookup with no output schema, the description tells the agent what a hit contains, which is the main thing missing from structured fields. Only matching/fuzzy behavior remains unaddressed.

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%, so both parameters are already fully documented, including the 1–20 limit range and the Portuguese/English term guidance. The description adds no syntax or matching semantics beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 ("Procura") and resource ("termos de perícia no glossário do NEXO CAUSAL") and lists the content returned (definição, equivalente em inglês, artigos). The glossary focus makes it distinguishable from article-oriented siblings, though it never names them explicitly.

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 only implied: the parenthetical return contents suggest this is the tool for resolving terminology, but there is no explicit statement of when to prefer it over buscar_artigos or ler_artigo, nor any exclusions.

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