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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, covering the safety profile. The description adds no extra behavioral detail such as error behavior or data source limitations, which is acceptable for a simple read-only lookup but does not add value beyond the 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 no wasted words: purpose, usage context, and parameter guidance are each front-loaded in their own sentence. Every sentence earns its place and the structure is easy to scan.

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 single-parameter read-only lookup with an output schema and strong annotations, the description fully covers what the tool does, when to use it, and how to supply the parameter. Nothing necessary for correct invocation is missing.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents the 'term' parameter with a description and examples. The description adds helpful context by explaining that terms are identified by slug and pointing to privacy_list_glossary_terms as the discovery path, which helps the agent supply a valid value.

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 specific verb and resource: 'Look up the plain-language definition of a privacy or data-protection term.' It gives concrete examples of term kinds and distinguishes itself from sibling tools by framing its scope as glossary definitions rather than enforcement cases or law requirements.

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?

It explicitly states when to use the tool: 'whenever someone asks what a term means, or when you need a precise definition before answering a Canadian privacy question.' It also routes the agent to a sibling, privacy_list_glossary_terms, for discovering slugs, though it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool.

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