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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds nothing beyond that - no note on what the glossary contains, pagination, or behavior when filters are absent. It does hint that request schemas live behind describe_operation, which is minor added context, but well short of meaningful behavioral disclosure.

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?

It is short but wasteful: the exact same path sentence is duplicated verbatim, so one of the three sentences earns nothing. Front-loading is fine, but redundancy and lack of substance make it inefficient rather than tight.

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 tool with nested generic objects, zero schema coverage, and no output schema, the description should explain what the glossary returns and how to shape the query. Instead it offers only the path and a pointer to describe_operation, leaving an agent unable to call it correctly without a second lookup.

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 0% and the two parameters (query, params) are untyped generic wrappers with no property documentation. The description's only relevant contribution is pointing to describe_operation for 'native request schemas', which partially compensates by telling the agent where real parameter detail lives, but it never explains what query or params should contain.

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 is a tautology: it repeats the URL path 'GET /api/ai/find-changes/glossary' twice and adds nothing about what a 'glossary' of AI find-changes actually is or returns. An agent can infer the resource is some glossary related to the find-changes feature, but the actual purpose (list of terms? entity type mappings? field glossaries?) is undefined, so it is barely better than the name alone.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this tool versus alternatives. The only routing hint is 'describe_operation provides native request schemas', which points to a schema-discovery sibling but not to when this endpoint is the right choice over, say, find_contracts or the other find-changes tools.

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