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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, which the description does not contradict. The description adds a useful behavioral detail: if the term doesn't exist, it returns the complete list. This is beyond annotations and helps the agent anticipate fallback behavior, even though it doesn't mention exact error format or list length.

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 concise sentence that packs purpose, scope, and fallback behavior. The key information is front-loaded. It could be considered slightly dense but is efficient with no waste.

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 lookup with a single parameter and no output schema, the description covers the core behavior. The fallback list is a nice touch. Minor gaps: doesn't specify if partial matches are supported or exact matching only, but given the simplicity, it is adequately complete.

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 100% of the parameter with a description including examples. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond that. Since coverage is high, baseline 3 applies; the description provides no extra meaning but the schema does the job.

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 it defines SEO/GEO/AEO terms from a specific glossary, listing example terms. It distinguishes this from sibling tools like 'buscar_articulos' or 'scannear_geo' by focusing on glossary definitions. The verb 'consultar' with resource 'glosario' is specific and unambiguous.

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 usage: when you need a definition of a term from the glossary. It does not explicitly mention alternatives, but sibling tools are clearly different (search articles, compare websites, scan GEO). No explicit 'when not to use' is given, but the context of glossary lookup is implicit and adequate.

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