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

Annotations already cover readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive behavior. The description adds meaningful behavioral detail beyond that: returning all entries per section vs. filtering to matching verbetes, and highlighting spelling variants from Candomblé, Santería, and Nigeria. No contradiction with annotations.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with scope and examples, and wastes no words. The behavioral rule about `term` is placed at the end but remains crisp and easy to parse.

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 read-only lookup tool with two optional parameters and no output schema, the description covers the resource, supported spelling variants, and filtering behavior. It does not explicitly mention `locale`, but the schema already provides that, so no critical invocation detail 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?

The schema only documents `locale`; `term` is undocumented in the schema. The description compensates by explaining the semantic effect of `term` through the 'sem/com' distinction and the idea of matching entries. Together with the schema's `locale` description, the parameters are well covered.

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 resource ('O glossário do site'), gives concrete examples of the 70+ terms, and specifies the two retrieval modes: without `term` returns everything by section, with `term` returns matching entries. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like get_article or search_library.

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 explicitly explains when to omit or provide the `term` parameter, which is the main usage decision. It does not explicitly compare against sibling tools, but the glossary scope is clear and there are no misleading exclusions.

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