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

Annotations already cover safety (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint), so the description's burden is lower. It adds substantive pagination behavior: 'follow next_offset while has_more is true,' which is a useful operational instruction beyond what annotations provide. It does not contradict annotations.

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 with zero repetition or filler. The first sentence states purpose and scope, the second gives use cases, and the third delivers the key pagination rule. Information is front-loaded and each sentence earns its place.

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 read-only browse tool with an output schema present and thorough annotations, this description is complete. It covers what the tool does, when to use it, and the critical pagination protocol. The presence of an output schema means return-value details are already structured, and no missing context prevents an agent from invoking it correctly.

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 baseline is 3. The description only summarizes the schema's existing search/filter behavior ('optional text search or first-letter filtering') without adding new parameter-level semantics. It gives no extra guidance on limits, offsets, or patterns beyond what the schema already describes.

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 opens with a clear verb and resource: 'Browse the 260+ term Canadian privacy glossary' and immediately distinguishes it from siblings by stating it is for exploring terms and finding slugs for privacy_lookup_glossary_term. It also mentions optional search/filter scoping, making the tool's role unambiguous.

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?

Explicitly tells agents when to use this tool: 'explore which terms exist, find the right slug for privacy_lookup_glossary_term, or gather definitions on a topic.' It names the sibling it feeds and implies the alternative (direct slug lookup), giving clear usage context with no guesswork.

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