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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safe-read profile is covered. The description contributes that the response includes the full terms text of the released version, but says nothing about permissions, error behavior for unknown UUIDs, or versioning semantics.

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 short sentence, front-loaded with the action and resource, with the return-content detail appended rather than buried. No wasted words.

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?

With an output schema present, the description need not explain return structure, and it still flags the notable payload (released-version terms text). For a single-parameter read tool with full annotations, this is nearly complete; only usage routing to siblings is absent.

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?

There is a single path parameter (id) whose format and meaning are already specified in the schema ('The UUID of the custom terms'). The description's 'by UUID' phrase reinforces but does not extend that, so it adds marginal value over the structured field.

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 gives a specific verb+resource ('Get custom terms') and scopes it to retrieval by UUID, which cleanly separates it from the sibling list-custom-terms. It adds that the released version's full terms text is returned, though it does not explicitly name the list/update alternatives.

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: 'by UUID' signals a single-record lookup versus the list-custom-terms sibling, but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and no mention of alternatives such as list-custom-terms or update-custom-term.

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