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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so safety is covered; the description adds genuinely useful context beyond that: FREE, Oxford Ledge editorial provenance, and PROFESSOR review status, which matter for trust in a reference tool. It does not add rate-limit or failure-mode details, keeping it short of a 5.

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?

Front-loaded with the corpus size and content, followed by the lookup form and the reason to prefer it. The provenance/FREE tail is useful but the sentence is dense; a slightly tighter package would read better, though nothing is wasted.

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?

With no output schema, the description compensates by enumerating what an entry contains (definition, worked example, etymology, pronunciation, related terms, learning paths), so an agent knows exactly what it will get back. For a one-parameter reference tool, nothing material is left unstated.

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 coverage is 100% and there is a single documented parameter, so the baseline is 3. The description goes further by stating the matching is case- and punctuation-tolerant and by giving worked lookup strings ('first lien', 'convexity', 'duration'), which is real value about match behavior that the schema does not state.

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 and resource ('Look up one term by name') and characterizes the corpus precisely (~1,500 finance/investing terms). Nothing in the sibling list does glossary lookup, so it is trivially distinguished, and the term examples disambiguate the lookup granularity.

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?

Gives an explicit when-to-use rule with rationale: ground explanations in the platform's own definitions 'instead of improvising one.' It lacks explicit when-not-to-use guidance or named alternatives, but no sibling overlaps on this function, so the gap is minor.

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