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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered structurally. The description adds one genuine behavioral detail beyond that — matching is accent- and case-insensitive — but says nothing about miss/no-result behavior or what a successful lookup yields.

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 no filler; the examples come immediately after the resource name and the matching constraint closes the line. The opening is a noun fragment rather than a verb phrase, a minor structural weakness, but nothing is wasted.

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 one-parameter read-only tool with annotations covering safety, the definition is close to sufficient. With no output schema, however, the description never indicates that a definition text is returned or what happens for an unknown term, leaving the agent to guess at result handling.

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 0%, so the description has to carry the weight for the single `term` parameter. It partially compensates by listing representative terms ("Settimane Dada21, Sede Dadaville, Dada21 DAO") and noting case/accent insensitivity, which tells the agent matching is normalized, but it never explicitly ties these facts to the parameter.

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 names the resource explicitly ("Glossario Dadaville") and the examples show the exact class of terms covered, so it is clear this is a glossary-lookup tool rather than a page/persona/sede getter. It lacks an explicit verb, relying on the title "Define" to supply action, but the resource is unambiguous and distinguishable from siblings.

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: looking up a term's definition. There is no statement of when to prefer this over the sibling `search` or `fetch`, and no exclusion or prerequisite noted. An agent can infer the case, but the description does not do the routing work.

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