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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral transparency burden. It discloses that the tool retrieves terms, formulas, and examples and that term is optional with supported languages, but it does not explain return format, default language, or behavior when term is omitted. This is adequate basic transparency but lacks depth.

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, front-loaded sentence that states the action and resource first, then adds parameter constraints. Every word earns its place with no filler or repetition.

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?

This is a simple optional-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, so the description should at least convey supported inputs and return types. It does convey inputs and content types, but it omits defaults, response format, and any distinction from closely related sibling tools, leaving some gaps for agent decision-making.

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 has no property descriptions, so the description is the only source of parameter meaning. It clarifies that 'term' is optional and that 'lang'/'language' accept en|lt|pl|de, adding real semantics beyond the raw schema. It does not explain the relationship between 'lang' and 'language' or defaults, but it covers all parameters.

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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and identifies a distinct resource ('freight glossary terms, formulas and examples'), which clearly differentiates it from siblings like get_faq and get_terms. It also specifies optional term and supported languages, further clarifying the tool's scope.

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 provides implied usage context by noting that term is optional and languages are limited to en|lt|pl|de, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over siblings or when not to use it. No alternatives are mentioned.

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