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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint. The description adds behavioral context by stating that omitting the term returns the full glossary, and that definitions are scoped to Apirro's usage. This goes beyond the annotations without contradicting them.

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?

One sentence with no fluff: states the action, lists representative terms, and explains the special behavior. The key information is front-loaded.

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 simple read-only glossary tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers everything needed: what it does, examples, and the omit-for-all behavior. No critical details are 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 description coverage is 100% and already documents the parameter with examples and the omit-for-all behavior. The description adds a broader list of example terms (MCP, UCP, AP2, etc.), which helps the agent understand valid values, slightly exceeding the schema's baseline.

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 states a specific action ('Define') and a specific resource ('agentic-commerce terms as Apirro uses them'), and lists concrete terms. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like get_apirro_pricing or scan_agent_readiness.

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 description implies when to use the tool (to define agentic-commerce terms) but does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion conditions. Given the sibling tools are obviously different in purpose, the usage context is clear enough.

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