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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior, so the description earns credit mainly for disclosing the return shape ('each match with its definition and page'), which matters since there is no output schema. It says nothing about ranking, match quality, or what happens on zero results.

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 front-loaded sentence plus a short return statement, no waste. The three inline example queries are illustrative rather than filler, though they add length without covering the optional filters.

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 three-parameter read-only search with no output schema, the description covers what it does, what inputs look like, and what comes back. Only the interaction between query and the topic filter is left unaddressed.

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 coverage is 100% with all three parameters documented, so the baseline is 3. The description does add that 'query' accepts natural-language questions, mildly extending the schema's 'A word, a few words or a question', but says nothing about 'topic' or 'limit'.

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 and resource ('Find glossary terms') and clarifies the input can be a word or a full question. It distinguishes itself implicitly from define_term/list_glossary by framing the operation as search over many terms, but never names those siblings.

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 parenthetical examples strongly imply when this tool fits (fuzzy, conceptual, or question-shaped lookups), but there is no explicit statement of when to prefer define_term for a known term or list_glossary for browsing.

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