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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world). The description adds real behavioral context beyond them: case-insensitive matching, partial-match acceptance, the list-all fallback, and the boundary that entries are definitions and not program parameters.

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?

Three sentences, zero waste: scope first, then invocation modes, then the boundary statement that prevents misfires. Well front-loaded and appropriately sized for a one-parameter lookup.

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?

Covers lookup semantics, the no-argument mode, and the content boundary of definitions. With no output schema, a brief note on the returned shape (term plus definition text) would help, but the description is otherwise sufficient for correct invocation.

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 parameter is fully documented in the schema, so the baseline is 3. The description goes further by specifying case-insensitive and partial-match semantics, which the schema does not state, and restates the omit-to-list-all behavior as a semantic guarantee.

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 (look up / list) and resource (DSCR and investor-loan glossary, 26 terms), with explicit scope. The 'definitions describe what a term is' framing cleanly separates it from sibling tools like loan_programs and rate_ranges, which carry figures rather than definitions.

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?

Explains both invocation modes clearly — pass a term, or omit it to list all terms — so the agent knows when each path applies. The caveat that no entry states a program parameter implicitly routes numeric/parameter questions to loan_programs, but it never names a sibling alternative explicitly.

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