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

With annotations already declaring read-only and non-destructive behavior, the description adds valuable context that this tool returns the 'full official rule/definition' and is 'essential for exact rule verification.' This clarifies the depth and authority of the response beyond basic read-only semantics.

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?

The description is two short sentences with no extraneous content. It front-loads the core purpose and provides a brief practical emphasis without redundancy.

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?

This is a simple, read-only lookup tool with one parameter and no output schema. The description adequately explains what is returned (full rule/definition) and when to use it, making it sufficiently complete for an agent to invoke 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?

The schema covers the single 'id' parameter fully with an example, and the description reinforces that it is a 'specific term ID.' Since schema coverage is 100%, the description adds little beyond what is already structured, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states the action ('Get') and resource ('full official rule/definition for a specific term ID'), which distinguishes it from the sibling search tool. The explicit focus on exact rule verification removes ambiguity about its intended use.

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?

The phrase 'Essential for exact rule verification' implies when this tool should be used, and the mention of 'specific term ID' signals it is for direct lookups rather than searching. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the guidance is clear enough for agent selection.

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