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

The description adds genuinely useful context beyond annotations by disclosing a price ('Cost: 10 credits') and that results are grouped by subject category/domain. Annotations already cover the read-only, non-destructive, open-world safety profile, so the remaining gap is that it doesn't say what happens on an unmatched input (empty result vs. error) or how many expansions are returned.

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 tight sentences with the core purpose front-loaded and the cost note trailing. Minor waste in restating the tool name ('Acronym Expander: Acronym Expander resolves...'), which earns no additional information.

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?

Output schema exists, so return-value description isn't required, and the description still signals that expansions come with categories and definitions per domain. With only two well-documented parameters, a safe read-only annotation profile, and the credit cost disclosed, an agent has everything needed to call 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so both parameters are already documented in structured form, and the description mostly repeats the 20-character limit. It hints that outputs span multiple domains, which loosely motivates the optional 'context' parameter, but never explains how context narrows or ranks results — so no real meaning is added beyond the schema.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'resolves acronyms and abbreviations into their full meanings, complete with subject categories and definitions.' An agent can tell this is a lookup/expansion tool rather than a generator. It stops short of contrasting itself with the sibling AcronymGenerator, leaving the direction of transformation (acronym→meaning vs. words→acronym) to be inferred from the name alone.

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?

Conveys implied usage ('submit any short term ... to get matching expansions') and the 20-character input bound scopes applicability, but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no named alternative among siblings. An agent must infer that AcronymGenerator is the counterpart for the reverse task.

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