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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Glossary-backed explanation,' giving no indication of whether the tool is read-only, what output format to expect, or any limitations. This is minimal and vague.

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 sentence with no wasted words, making it very concise. However, it might be too terse to be fully informative, and a more structured description could add value without sacrificing brevity.

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?

Given the abundance of similar explanation tools among siblings (explain_payram_basics, explain_payment_flow, explain_referral_flow), the description is insufficient to guide correct tool selection. It does not mention what specific terms or constraints are covered, nor does it clarify the scope relative to other explain tools.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. There are no parameter details to explain, and the description does not need to compensate for schema gaps since the schema is empty and coverage is 100%.

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 clearly states the tool explains Payram terminology and constraints, backed by a glossary. This is a specific verb+resource combination, but it does not explicitly distinguish it from sibling tools like explain_payram_basics or explain_payment_flow.

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?

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of appropriate use cases, exclusions, or comparisons to other explanation tools, leaving the agent to guess which tool fits a given query.

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