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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds one useful behavioral fact — that it links to a full explanation rather than returning the definition inline — but says nothing about unknown/near-miss terms, case sensitivity, or ambiguity handling.

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?

A single compact sentence with the action front-loaded, the domain qualifier mid-sentence, and the return behavior at the end. Nothing is wasted and nothing is buried.

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, read-only lookup with no output schema, the description covers purpose and the shape of the result (a link to a full explanation). It only falls short on failure/edge-case behavior, which is a minor omission at this complexity.

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% with a single 'term' string, so the schema already carries the semantics. The description's example list (LTN, HTN, Chadlite, canthal tilt, hunter eyes, mog) does hint at the accepted vocabulary, which is mild added value, but no matching rules or format guidance is given.

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 a concrete verb+resource ("Define a looksmaxxing / PSL term") and enumerates example terms, so the agent knows exactly what it returns. It is not explicitly differentiated from the closest sibling psl_score_lookup, but the resource ('term definition') is distinct enough to be recognizable.

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?

Usage is only implied by the word 'look up' — the description never states when to prefer this over psl_score_lookup or the face measurement tools. No prerequisites, no when-not conditions, no disambiguation from siblings is offered.

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