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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, closed-world, non-destructive behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful non-annotation context: definitions come from Dadras's glossary and include the explaining article plus a dadrasai.com link.

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?

Front-loaded with the purpose and examples, then the usage condition in one clause. The four inline examples consume space but earn it by illustrating the Persian input domain; still slightly heavier than strictly needed.

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 one-parameter lookup with rich annotations and no output schema, the description adequately explains what comes back (definition, source article, link). Nothing essential to invoking it 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?

Schema description coverage is 100% on the single 'term' parameter and the schema itself gives the Persian example and length bounds. The description repeats the example style but adds no format or matching semantics, so baseline 3 applies.

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+resource ('what a Persian legal term means') and anchors it with four concrete Persian examples and the source glossary (Dadras). Siblings are about law articles, searches, and calculators, so an agent can tell this glossary lookup apart instantly.

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?

'Use it when a reader asks what a legal word means' gives a clear triggering context. There is no explicit when-not guidance or named alternative among the siblings (e.g. find_law vs this glossary), which keeps it just short of 5.

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