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

With no annotations, the description must carry behavioral disclosure. It does state that omitting the term returns all definitions, which is a useful behavior. However, it does not mention read-only semantics, potential errors, or response format. For a simple lookup, this partial disclosure earns a 3.

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?

The description is a single, well-structured sentence that leads with the core purpose and then lists the specific terms. There is no wasted wording, and the no-term behavior is clearly stated.

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?

The tool is simple (one optional parameter, no output schema). The description covers the core behavior and term list but omits the return structure (e.g., whether it returns a list or map, how definitions are formatted). Since there is no output schema, this information should be in the description, so completeness is only partial.

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 provides only a generic 'term' string with no description or enums (0% coverage). The description compensates by listing the accepted term values and clarifying the optionality (returns all if omitted). This adds substantial meaning 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?

The description states that the tool provides canonical definitions for a specific list of Crovia terms (tacet, silence, lacuna, seal, epoch, pnx, predicate, canon) and that it returns all when no term is given. This is a clear verb-resource mapping and distinguishes it from sibling tools like crovia_status or verify_seal.

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 offers no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus its siblings. It does not mention alternatives, exclusions, or the appropriate context for querying definitions. The usage is only implied by the tool's purpose.

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