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 the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely non-obvious return-content behavior: only ids and metadata come back and the terms text is deliberately omitted. It does not discuss pagination defaults, though the schema does.

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 short sentences, zero filler, with the payload-scope caveat front-loaded before the alternative-tool pointer. Every clause carries information an agent needs.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the annotations cover the safety profile. Combined with the explicit note that the terms body is omitted and the pointer to get-custom-term, nothing an agent needs to call this correctly is missing.

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 top-level queryParams object carries no description (0% coverage at that level), and the description says nothing about paging. However, the nested page[size] and page[number] fields are documented in the schema itself with defaults, so the practical gap is small and the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 names a specific verb and resource ("List custom terms") and immediately scopes the payload ("ids and metadata only; the terms text is omitted"), which cleanly separates it from the sibling get-custom-term and from the create/update term tools. An agent can identify the tool without opening the schema.

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?

It explicitly routes the agent to the alternative ("Use get-custom-term for the full body") with the condition that selects it, which is exactly the decision an agent faces here. It stops short of covering other usage context such as pagination strategy or when listing is unnecessary, so it is clear rather than exhaustive.

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