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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely new operational context: results are paginated and the agent must follow next_offset while has_more is true. No statement about result ordering or search matching semantics beyond 'names and definitions', which the schema already 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?

Three sentences, no filler. The scope (313-term Canadian glossary) is front-loaded, filtering follows, and the pagination instruction closes. Every sentence carries distinct information.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-shape explanation is unnecessary, and annotations cover the safety profile. The description fills the remaining gaps an agent needs: filter modes, the discovery-vs-lookup routing, and pagination mechanics.

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 the schema already documents limit, query, offset and starts_with including defaults, bounds and the offset/next_offset relationship. The description only restates the two filtering modes at a conceptual level and adds no syntax or format detail 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 and resource — 'Browse the 313-term Canadian privacy glossary' — plus the two filter modes (text search, first-letter). It also differentiates itself from the sibling privacy_lookup_glossary_term by casting itself as the discovery/browse step versus the targeted lookup.

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?

Gives three concrete usage triggers (explore which terms exist, find the right slug for privacy_lookup_glossary_term, gather definitions on a topic) and names the sibling tool that handles the lookup case. The agent can route between browse and lookup without inference.

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