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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so safety and repeatability are covered. The description adds the empty-term listing behavior, but says nothing about matching semantics (exact vs. partial, case sensitivity) or what an unknown term returns. Adequate but not rich.

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 tightly written sentences: the purpose and examples come first, the operational mode-switch second. No filler, no repetition of the title or schema text.

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-optional-parameter lookup tool with safety annotations and no output schema, the description covers both invocation modes and the domain. The only gap is how term matching behaves, which an agent may want to know before passing a fuzzy term.

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 single parameter is 100% covered by the schema ('The term to define. Optional.'), which would set a baseline of 3. The description goes beyond that by explaining the special empty-value behavior — list all terms — which is meaning the schema does not convey.

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?

Specific verb ('Defines') plus a clearly scoped resource (an agency AI operations term), reinforced by four concrete example terms that pin down the domain. An agent immediately knows this is a glossary lookup, but the description never names or contrasts a sibling tool, which is the only thing keeping it from a 5.

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?

'Leave term empty to list all terms' gives an explicit mode-switch instruction that tells the agent exactly when to omit the parameter. It does not, however, address when to prefer this glossary over the sibling rebrief_tax tool, despite the overlapping 're-brief tax' term.

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