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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that results come from substring matching over a defined vocabulary, which is useful context, but says nothing about result ordering, truncation by limit, or case sensitivity.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler. The matching semantics and vocabulary scope are packed into one clause without any redundant restatement of the tool name.

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?

The tool is simple (2 parameters, no nesting) and an output schema exists, so return-value documentation is not needed. The remaining minor gap is result-count/ordering behavior tied to limit, which the description omits.

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 must carry the burden. It does clarify that search_text is a partial/substring match rather than an exact term, which is real added meaning, but the limit parameter (default 10) is not addressed at all — leaving whether it caps or ranks results ambiguous.

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 verb ('Find'), a specific resource ('glossary terms'), the vocabulary domain (acquisition + spending), and the matching mode (partial match). This implicitly separates it from the sibling get_glossary (full retrieval), though that sibling is never named explicitly.

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 only implied: the agent can infer this is for partial/lookup-style term resolution rather than reading a full glossary entry. There is no explicit 'use this when... instead use get_glossary when...' guidance, so the choice among the many autocomplete_* siblings is left to inference.

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