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

Annotations already declare a read-only, non-destructive, closed-world read, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds a useful payload constraint (terms text omitted, metadata only), which goes beyond the annotations. However it says nothing about pagination behavior or result volume, which the nested query params imply.

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 zero waste; the payload-scope constraint is front-loaded ahead of the alternative-tool pointer. Every clause earns its place.

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, return values needn't be explained, and the description correctly focuses on scope plus the routing hint. For a simple filtered-list tool it is nearly complete, though pagination expectations are left entirely to the schema.

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 queryParams object with 0% top-level schema coverage, and the description adds no parameter meaning. The nested page[size] and page[number] fields do carry their own descriptions and defaults in the schema, so the gap is partially mitigated. Baseline 3 is appropriate given the schema documents the effective inputs.

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 (List) and resource (custom terms) and immediately scopes the payload (ids and metadata only; the terms text is omitted). It explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling get-custom-term, so an agent can tell the two apart without opening a 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?

Names the alternative explicitly ('Use get-custom-term for the full body'), giving the condition that selects it. It doesn't cover list-vs-search-style cases or pagination expectations, but the core when-to-use routing is clear.

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